"Sacra Pagina" Commentaries?

[Tarpeian_Rock]

Curious to learn what people think of the Sacra Pagina series of commentaries. Thanks.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Curious to learn what people think of the Sacra Pagina series of commentaries. Thanks.

IMO, pretty middle of the road with fairly consistent quality of scholarship, which I don’t think can be said of any other series taken as a whole. For example (just to compare), the Anchor Bible has both wonderful gems and borderline trash.

 

[EricFilmer]

I have found Sacra Pagina to be a very good commentary series. I especially like how it delves into many passages of Scripture line by line, examining the Greek, the context, and scriptural parallels in great detail. I wish Sacra Pagina would do the OT at some point.

The three main commentaries I utilize is the Ignatius Study Bible, *Sacra Pagina *and the Navarre Bible commentaries.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Curious to learn what people think of the Sacra Pagina series of commentaries. Thanks.

Overall I prefer the Anchor Bible Series. That’s my default choice for both OT and NT. There are, as was said, a few bad ones–well, really bad–Matthew and Mark for example. Then I go to Sacra Pagina. Some poor ones in the Anchor Series have been replaced though, e.g., Hebrews and Acts–both quite good now.

Absolute tops in my view from Anchor are Luke, James, Acts, Romans, 1-2 Tim. John and 1,2,3 John by Raymond Brown are good if you know how to read him. Hebrews is by a Lutheran scholar but generally quite good.

Acts, Romans, Galatians, and John in Sacra Pagina are good too–but often not at quite the same level of scholarship as the Anchor Series.

Sacra Pagina in my experience suffers more than Anchor from political correctness, lefty marxist power analyses, etc. in the Catholic style of course. The commentator on Matthew frets and strains himself over fears of latent antisemitism in the Gospel. I literally threw one in the garbage (I think Colossians/Ephesians, maybe Revelation)–feminist hermeneutic.

I haven’t read all of the Sacra Pagina series, so I can only go from the ones I have gone through.

 

[melbanglican]

Overall I prefer the Anchor Bible Series. That’s my default choice for both OT and NT. There are, as was said, a few bad ones–well, really bad–Matthew and Mark for example. Then I go to Sacra Pagina. Some poor ones in the Anchor Series have been replaced though, e.g., Hebrews and Acts–both quite good now.

Absolute tops in my view from Anchor are Luke, James, Acts, Romans, 1-2 Tim. John and 1,2,3 John by Raymond Brown are good if you know how to read him. Hebrews is by a Lutheran scholar but generally quite good.

Acts, Romans, Galatians, and John in Sacra Pagina are good too–but often not at quite the same level of scholarship as the Anchor Series.

Sacra Pagina in my experience suffers more than Anchor from political correctness, lefty marxist power analyses, etc. in the Catholic style of course. The commentator on Matthew frets and strains himself over fears of latent anti-semitism in the Gospel. I literally threw one in the garbage (I think Colossians/Ephesians, maybe Revelation)–feminist hermeneutic.

I haven’t read all of the Sacra Pagina series, so I can only go from the ones I have gone through.

I am curious about what you mean by ‘political correctness’ and ‘lefty marxist power analyses, etc.’ For Americans, that seems to mean almost any implied criticism of a supposedly God-ordained socio-economic order in which rich white men are on top all the time. I’m sure that you didn’t mean it that way, but it would be nice to know just what your criticism meant, as I’m about to buy a couple of volumes in the series.

I am particularly interested in your observations on the volume on Matthew. One of the authors, Harrington, is a very highly-educated and erudite Jesuit who has been involved in the writing of a number of other volumes in the series, including Acts, John, Romans, Revelation and Galatians.

I’m slightly puzzled by your comment over ‘fears of latent anti-semitism’ in Matthew. The Gospel itself was almost certainly written by a Jewish Christian to convince other Jews that Jesus was the Messiah. As you will have noticed, it would not take a very devious mind to turn Mt 23 and other later passages into an anti-semitic diatribe. Did they fuel the pogroms and massacres that plagued Europe from 1096? I believe that the loathsome Lanz von Lebenfels used them in exactly that manner, offering direct encouragement to the fermenting ideas of one H Hitler. So, there’s not much that’s ‘latent’ about the anti-semitism of this Gospel, if it is used out of context.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

I am curious about what you mean by ‘political correctness’ and ‘lefty marxist power analyses, etc.’ For Americans, that seems to mean almost any implied criticism of a supposedly God-ordained socio-economic order in which rich white men are on top all the time. I’m sure that you didn’t mean it that way, but it would be nice to know just what your criticism meant, as I’m about to buy a couple of volumes in the series.

I am particularly interested in your observations on the volume on Matthew. One of the authors, Harrington, is a very highly-educated and erudite Jesuit who has been involved in the writing of a number of other volumes in the series, including Acts, John, Romans, Revelation and Galatians.

I’m slightly puzzled by your comment over ‘fears of latent anti-semitism’ in Matthew. The Gospel itself was almost certainly written by a Jewish Christian to convince other Jews that Jesus was the Messiah. As you will have noticed, it would not take a very devious mind to turn Mt 23 and other later passages into an anti-semitic diatribe. Did they fuel the pogroms and massacres that plagued Europe from 1096? I believe that the loathsome Lanz von Lebenfels used them in exactly that manner, offering direct encouragement to the fermenting ideas of one H Hitler. So, there’s not much that’s ‘latent’ about the anti-semitism of this Gospel, if it is used out of context.

“Political correctness” means dealing (actually not dealing) with real problems by imposing a stifling etiquette of proper speech and topics of discussion on our interactions rather than getting below the surface to the heart of the problem through open and rational dialogue. Infractions are sternly sanctioned by a severe rhetoric of name calling like “imperialist”, “racist”, “sexist”, “western” in a fashion similar to the McCarthy era’s use of the word “communist.” Shut people up by calling them a name. It also means buying into this passively by not mentioning those problems. So for example, to mention it would help to overcome racial inequities in America if we could find ways to strengthen black families given the 70% illegitimacy rate (a spike that occurred after Great Society efforts to give out government aid), would almost certainly get one called a “racist.” As a result that important discussion is avoided.

By “lefty Marxist power analyses” I mean viewing the socio-economic realities of a society primarily through the lens of class conflict and class envy and a hermeneutic of suspicion which assumes that those with more money and better jobs got there not by hard work and/or native ability and some luck but by cheating, the old boy network, and racist and sexist exclusion of others. To suggest that education, competency not quotas, and ethic of hard work could be instilled to improve a community’s wealth, is to impose the prevailing dominant evil white, male, left-brain, Western, Anglophone, left-brained, vile male, red-neck, capitalist pig linear logic on minorities. Instead it is instilled in select groups that posturing yourself (with the help of others) as a victim gets you more money, more quotas, more people like you in government, and more entitlements. I can’t think of anything more disempowering and emasculating (if you’ll pardon the vile male reference).

It also means labeling and dismissing any critique of the above Marxist analysis as simply a “criticism of a supposedly God-ordained socio-economic order in which rich white men are on top all the time.” So if one points out that in American business actually when one adjusts for time in a job, willingness to take physically demanding and/or dangerous jobs and/or dirty jobs, choice in education specialties (e.g., more man in science and engineering), and the fact today there are 39 jobs (including aerospace engineer, speech pathologist, financial analyst) where women earn at least 5% more than men, they might get the kind of label you mentioned.

This kind of mentality is in some of the SP commentaries more so than the Anchor ones. That is what I meant.

RE Mt I was put off because after a good introductory section (#7) stating that anti-semitism as we know it should not be read back into assertions of Christian distinctiveness and opposition to early Jewish persecution of Christians in Mt, he then seems almost afraid and certainly apologetic to mention them. But it is better than the present Anchor Mt.

Herrington, however, didn’t write any of the commentaries you mention.

IMHO a biblical commentary should interpret the text not impose trendy special interest hermeneutics on it. It should tell one what the biblical author wished to express and intend to convey by the words used. The Anchor series does this better and, generally, at a higher scholarly level.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Paragraph 3 should read–
It also means labeling and dismissing any critique of the above Marxist analysis as simply a “criticism of a supposedly God-ordained socio-economic order in which rich white men are on top all the time.” So if one points out that in American business actually when one adjusts for time in a job, willingness to take physically demanding and/or dangerous jobs and/or dirty jobs, choice in education specialties (e.g., more man in science and engineering), and the fact today there are 39 jobs (including aerospace engineer, speech pathologist, financial analyst) where women earn at least 5% more than men, salaries of men and women are virtually equal, they might get the kind of label you mentioned.

 

[Oldtimer_7]

The Gospel of Matthew in the Sacra Pagina series was most certainly written by Daniel Harrington, S.J. It is so stated on the cover. On the back of my copy is also a listing of the other books he has written for the Liturgical Press. My only regret about the book is that I bought a paperback copy rather than the hardbound. One of the things I like about Harrington in this book is the way he is very up-front about Catholic points of view and does not try to slide them in unannounced. His writing style is clear and easy to follow, not the case in some other authors I have read. It is directed at people who are not professional theologians, but who are looking for a deeper understanding of Scripture. In this he succeeds most satisfactorily.

Any author is a product of his times. It is inevitable that some of his cultural values will be seen in his writings. It certainly applied to Martin Luther, for example, and many of Luther’s positions, especially in his later years are rejected by modern-day Lutherans.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

The Gospel of Matthew in the Sacra Pagina series was most certainly written by Daniel Harrington, S.J. It is so stated on the cover. On the back of my copy is also a listing of the other books he has written for the Liturgical Press. My only regret about the book is that I bought a paperback copy rather than the hardbound. One of the things I like about Harrington in this book is the way he is very up-front about Catholic points of view and does not try to slide them in unannounced. His writing style is clear and easy to follow, not the case in some other authors I have read. It is directed at people who are not professional theologians, but who are looking for a deeper understanding of Scripture. In this he succeeds most satisfactorily.

Any author is a product of his times. It is inevitable that some of his cultural values will be seen in his writings. It certainly applied to Martin Luther, for example, and many of Luther’s positions, especially in his later years are rejected by modern-day Lutherans.

Yeah, I have a copy of it too. I was refering to the others that were mentioned. Good point about being the product of ones times. Anchor seems less influenced though.