The Catholic Study Bible

[ac_claire]

I was curious if anyone here is familiar with The Catholic Study Bible, copyright 1990 by Oxford University Press, edited by Donald Senior, Mary Ann Getty, Carroll Stuhlmueller and John J. Collins. The translation used is the New American Bible.

I prefer the RSV-CE for my daily readings and just in general, but I also thought it might be good to have an actual study Bible, with footnotes, reading guides, glossary, lectionary, etc.

Is this a good study Bible? Recommended or no? And are the reading guides any good? To be honest, I have more than enough Bibles laying around my house, so the extensive reading guides and the articles on Biblical history and archeology are the main things I was interested in here.

Thanks in advance for any replies. :tiphat:

 

[swampboy]

I have heard that it is a decent study bible, but I have my doubts. The book intros and notes are the same heretical notes as any other NAB, but it does have additional info as you stated in which you are specifically interested. I am like you…I have an entire bookcase dedicated to bibles…so I would personally save my money and look for a book specifically pertaining to bible history/archaeology on the EWTN catologue–or I would pick up a Haydock DR if you have money burning a hole in your pocket. A cheaper way out is to pick up a NJB if you just want a basic study bible.

 

[ac_claire]

I have heard that it is a decent study bible, but I have my doubts. The book intros and notes are the same heretical notes as any other NAB, but it does have additional info as you stated in which you are specifically interested. I am like you…I have an entire bookcase dedicated to bibles…so I would personally save my money and look for a book specifically pertaining to bible history/archaeology on the EWTN catologue–or I would pick up a Haydock DR if you have money burning a hole in your pocket. A cheaper way out is to pick up a NJB if you just want a basic study bible.

Yeah, the notorious NAB footnotes were my main reservation here. I never knew the intros were problematic too, guess I never read them closely. Good advice, thanks.

 

[James0235]

I was curious if anyone here is familiar with The Catholic Study Bible, copyright 1990 by Oxford University Press, edited by Donald Senior, Mary Ann Getty, Carroll Stuhlmueller and John J. Collins. The translation used is the New American Bible.

:tiphat:

I used to have a copy. I referred to it as the “Catholic” Study Bible. I always put quotes around Catholic (“Catholic”) when I wrote about it and I’d make air quotes with my fingers whenever I mentioned it by name.

James

 

[ac_claire]

I used to have a copy. I referred to it as the “Catholic” Study Bible. I always put quotes around Catholic (“Catholic”) when I wrote about it and I’d make air quotes with my fingers whenever I mentioned it by name.

I’m going through the Reading Guide now, trying to see if it passes the “Catholicity” test on certain key Scripture passages that support specifically Catholic doctrines. I’ll report my findings back here.

 

[Cranch]

I was curious if anyone here is familiar with The Catholic Study Bible, copyright 1990 by Oxford University Press, edited by Donald Senior, Mary Ann Getty, Carroll Stuhlmueller and John J. Collins. The translation used is the New American Bible.

Is this a good study Bible? Recommended or no? And are the reading guides any good?

I own this bible. Disclaimer: I do not recommend the NAB; not only because of the theological perspective of the notes but because of the failings of the translation itself (see the link in my sig for examples of objectional translation in the NAB).

That being said, I really like this particular bible as a BOOK. It perhaps is produced more cheaply now, I don’t know. And it is not bound in leather with a gilt page block; but my older copy is well bound in cloth with perhaps the best quality of printing I have ever seen in a bible: clear, super crisp and perfectly solid ink coverage in a readable modern typeface on high-quality, smooth white paper with generous margins. The 14 color maps (showing topography) are printed on thicker paper and are drawn with a quality found in the best atlases, unlike the garishly-colored maps found in many bibles. The book lies flat opened at any page and has a sturdy, coated paper dust jacket.

The amount of study material here is also impressive with a 577-page reading guide covering every book, in addition to the original NAB book introductions, copious notes and a few short articles on various bible topics. There is an awful lot of interesting stuff here, but it seems to be grounded in the modern forms of text criticism, which for me seems to concentrate primarily on the human component of the writings, neglecting their divinely inspired nature. Here is sentence from the reading guide for Tobit: “The Book of Tobit then reflects the belief of early Judaism in angels and demons as supernatural beings.” Not inaccurate, but not exactly a ringing endorsement. And from the reading guide for Isaiah: “It should already be clear that a book such as Isaiah is the product, not so much of an individual, but of a tradition.” For the New Testament, the commentary sometimes comes across as if the details of the Gospels were plot devices illustrating the human authors’ overarching themes. Also get ready to read things like: Paul himself most likely did not actually write Ephesians or, for that matter, five other Pauline letters. There is a lot here of value, particularly regarding the theological history of Old and New Testament Jewish and Christian communities. There is also stuff that gives pause, not least being the approach of those that put it all together. Bring your own strong faith.

 

[swampboy]

You might want to consider the New Jerome Biblical Commentary…I think it may be more along the line of what you want. I have the 1990 version, which still contains some liberal commentary, but i think it has since been updated and alot of that nonsense has been removed. I find it to be pretty good as it has a decent amount of study materials in addition to the commentary which is based mostly upon the RSV-CE. No bible translation just info–and lots of it!

 

[diggerdomer]

This is an excellent study Bible (Catholic or not).

Swampboy is totally out of line to refer to it as heretical. Quite simply: it’s not. I’m baffled at how anyone could claim that, it’s the basis for the Lectionary used at Mass for Catholics. Simply, again, it’s not heretical.

Anyway, moving on to more relevant comments, if anyone were to ask me for a recommendation of study Bibles, I’d recommend the one you refer to and the latest NRSV edition (which has Catholic scholars as part of the editorial board).

Cheers

 

[swampboy]

This is an excellent study Bible (Catholic or not).

Swampboy is totally out of line to refer to it as heretical. Quite simply: it’s not. I’m baffled at how anyone could claim that, it’s the basis for the Lectionary used at Mass for Catholics. Simply, again, it’s not heretical.

Anyway, moving on to more relevant comments, if anyone were to ask me for a recommendation of study Bibles, I’d recommend the one you refer to and the latest NRSV edition (which has Catholic scholars as part of the editorial board).

Cheers

First off, I did not claim that the text–which is the only part of that book used at mass with some corrections–was heretical. I was referring to the notes and study information like the book intros, which the poster noted was their primary interest. I believe another poster here confirmed my position by indicating that the study information in this book followed suit of the book intros, etc. which you will find in any NAB. I don’t know about you, but any bible that tells me that Matthew didn’t write the GOSPEL of Matthew is a little shady to me. Just my opinion though, and we’re all entitled to our own opinion last I knew. As for the text, I do not have a preference either way really…I personally think that there are much better translations that avoid inclusive language and have a higher degree of accuracy. Again I would suggest that the original poster take a look at a reference book such as the New Jerome Commentary.

 

[diggerdomer]

Sorry if I misunderstood. Mea culpa.

The New Jerome Biblical Commentary is an excellent resource (and will also include things like a discussion of who wrote the Gospels, Paul’s letters, and so on).

 

[joemccarron]

I really like my copy. I found the information in the guides to be very helpful before diving into a specific book. Plus whenever I had questions it seemed to have some further explanation in the notes. I know this is subjective but I like the Catholic Study Bible.

 

[thistle]

I have heard that it is a decent study bible, but I have my doubts. The book intros and notes are the same heretical notes as any other NAB, but it does have additional info as you stated in which you are specifically interested. I am like you…I have an entire bookcase dedicated to bibles…so I would personally save my money and look for a book specifically pertaining to bible history/archaeology on the EWTN catologue–or I would pick up a Haydock DR if you have money burning a hole in your pocket. A cheaper way out is to pick up a NJB if you just want a basic study bible.

Be careful what you say. The NAB Notes might not be very good but you cannot say they are heretical. The Church approved the NAB and the notes are included. The Church cannot approve anything that is heretical.

 

[James0235]

The Church cannot approve anything that is heretical.

But the USCCB can.

James

 

[NHInsider]

I don’t know about you, but any bible that tells me that Matthew didn’t write the GOSPEL of Matthew is a little shady to me. Just my opinion though, and we’re all entitled to our own opinion last I knew.

Um - The Gospel of Matthew doesn’t claim anywhere to have been written by Matthew. (Unlike, for example, Luke.)

 

[diggerdomer]

But the USCCB can.

James

Really? Can you cite one example?

And, at least, I’d encourage a bit more charity by not labelling other Christians as heretics.

Cheers

 

[James0235]

Really? Can you cite one example?

Do not put words into my mouth. I nowhere claimed that they had. I merely stated that it was possible. They most certainly do not speak with infallibility.

For the most part when it comes to the USCCB the safest course is to do what they say and not what they do (see Matthew 23:3) - failing to speak out against pro-abortion “Catholic” politicians, failing to do anything about widespread Liturgical abuse, giving OUR money to a left wing organization that appears to have attempted to fix the election for Obama (not that this was even necessary) under the guise of registering people to vote, turning the other way when they learn of boy-hungry pedophiles preying on defenseless children, etc.

And, at least, I’d encourage a bit more charity by not labelling other Christians as heretics.

It is not uncharitable to call a heretic a heretic. It would be a sin against charity to pretend that a heretic was not a heretic.

Anyway, I called no one a heretic in this thread. If you are concerned with charity then might I suggest that you actually read a post before commenting on it. That way you will be less likely to make unfounded accusations.

James

 

[James0235]

Um - The Gospel of Matthew doesn’t claim anywhere to have been written by Matthew. (Unlike, for example, Luke.)

But, the Catholic Church actually does claim that the Gospel of Matthew was written by Matthew. In 1911 the Pontifical Biblical Commission, which was at the time an arm of the Magisterium itself, declared:

Concerning the Author, the Date, and the Historical Truth of the Gospel according to Matthew

June 19, 1911 (AAS 3 [1911] 294ff; EB 401ff; Dz 2148 ff)

I: Having regard to the universal and unwavering agreement of the Church ever since the first centuries, an agreement clearly attested by the express witness of the Fathers, by the titles of the Gospel manuscripts, the most ancient versions of the sacred books and the lists handed on by the holy Fathers, by ecclesiastical writers, by Popes and Councils, and finally by the liturgical use of the Church in the East and in the West, may and should it be affirmed as certain that Matthew, the Apostle of Christ, was in fact the author of the Gospel current under his name?

Answer: In the affirmative.

James

 

[diggerdomer]

Do not put words into my mouth. I nowhere claimed that they had. I merely stated that it was possible. They most certainly do not speak with infallibility.

For the most part when it comes to the USCCB the safest course is to do what they say and not what they do (see Matthew 23:3) - failing to speak out against pro-abortion “Catholic” politicians, failing to do anything about widespread Liturgical abuse, giving OUR money to a left wing organization that appears to have attempted to fix the election for Obama (not that this was even necessary) under the guise of registering people to vote, turning the other way when they learn of boy-hungry pedophiles preying on defenseless children, etc.

It is not uncharitable to call a heretic a heretic. It would be a sin against charity to pretend that a heretic was not a heretic.

Anyway, I called no one a heretic in this thread. If you are concerned with charity then might I suggest that you actually read a post before commenting on it. That way you will be less likely to make unfounded accusations.

James

Sorry if I misread you James. From your earlier post it seemed you were expressing an opinion that the USCCB had (not just could) produce something heretical, which I guess I incorrectly took to be not really different from accusing them of heresy. I hope no one else read your post that way.

Again, sorry if you felt I was putting words in your mouth.

Cheers

 

[James0235]

Sorry if I misread you James. From your earlier post it seemed you were expressing an opinion that the USCCB had (not just could) produce something heretical, which I guess I incorrectly took to be not really different from accusing them of heresy. I hope no one else read your post that way.

Again, sorry if you felt I was putting words in your mouth.

Cheers

Think nothing of it. And I apologize to you for becoming a bit too hostile.

It has been quite awhile since I have looked at the Catholic Study Bible or even an NAB but I do seem to remember one or two websites a couple of years back that dissected the NAB footnotes. A footnote would be quoted and then a Papal Encyclical, for instance, would be quoted to show that the particular footnote contradicted Catholic teaching. If I remember correctly the claim was made that the NAB footnotes contradicted Catholic teaching on nearly every page of the NAB. But, it has been a long time since I have read this.

James

 

[diggerdomer]

But, the Catholic Church actually does claim that the Gospel of Matthew was written by Matthew. In 1911 the Pontifical Biblical Commission, which was at the time an arm of the Magisterium itself, declared:

Yes, the PBC did claim that. In 1911.

But lots of things have changed since then. In 1964 the same Commission published “Instruction Concerning the Historical Truth of the Gospels.”

I’d recommend reading para 6-9 (actually the whole thing is good, but these para deal most directly with the thread):

bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/cjrelations/resources/documents/catholic/pbcgospels.htm

%between%

In short summary, the PBC refers to the authors of the Gospels as “sacred authors” without requiring or denying whether they were the actual Apostles themselves. This is the same thing taught by Vatican II in Dei Verbum.

Cheers