The Catholic Study Bible

[Bob_Aliano]

Does The Catholic Study Bible, New American Bible version, provide sufficient background, insight and instruction to allow a Catholic to interpret the scripture in a manner that satisfies the Catechism instructions? Looking for an informed answer, no guesses please.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I would read the customer reviews at Amazon. Here they are.

 

[awatkins69]

The commentary seems fine, but the version has been notorious for being a terrible translation, and then taking many years just to be acceptable. I have the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible, with commentary mainly by Scott Hahn, RSV-CE, and it’s pretty good in my opinion, commentary and translation. Only problem is that it is just NT. Orthodox Study Bible is pretty good too. The NT is the NKJV, which is fine, and the OT is an English translation of the Septuagint. Commentary, intros, and extra are all really good.

 

[Bob_Aliano]

The commentary seems fine, but the version has been notorious for being a terrible translation, and then taking many years just to be acceptable. I have the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible, with commentary mainly by Scott Hahn, RSV-CE, and it’s pretty good in my opinion, commentary and translation. Only problem is that it is just NT. Orthodox Study Bible is pretty good too. The NT is the NKJV, which is fine, and the OT is an English translation of the Septuagint. Commentary, intros, and extra are all really good.

Thanks for the response and thanks to MarcoPolo as well. I already had purchased the NAB when I returned to the Church and subsequently got the Study Bible as well. From what you’ve said and the comments I read on Amazon it sounds like I’m in OK territory although not the most desirable, maybe I’ll upgrade in the near future.

 

[Bookcat]

Very good is the Navarre…and with this could go the Ignatius and the Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture…these three go great together

 

[COPLAND_3]

I don’t like the NAB footnotes and introductions due to it being riddled with unorthodoxy. One of the best cheap study Bibles is the Douay-Rheims Version, with Challoner footnotes and introductions. It is not loaded with footnotes, but it usually does provide enough comments for all the difficult passages, and it is in line with patristic thought. The Ignatius Study Bible and the Navarre Bible are tops, but in my opinon they are closer to being Bible commentaries rather than study Bibles, and buying all the volumes can break the bank unless you buy them over time.

 

[Axion]

Does The Catholic Study Bible, New American Bible version, provide sufficient background, insight and instruction to allow a Catholic to interpret the scripture in a manner that satisfies the Catechism instructions? Looking for an informed answer, no guesses please.

I would say DEFINITELY NOT.

1. It adopts the Liberal-critical methodology as orthodoxy and as if it were fact. This means it is constantly questioning the truthfulness of the biblical accounts and the writers witness. The bible is assumed to have been written or re-written, not by the stated authors but by a set of nameless “redactors” who supposedly massaged, altered and twisted the text. Prophecies are never true prophecies, but fraudulently added in later, after the “prophecized” event occurred. Mary never said the Magnificat, the words were added later by someone fictionalising the account. Quite simply this simply promotes disbelief and an attitude of contempt for the veracity and truth of the scriptures.
2. The version fails to link in the bible with Catholic teaching or show how Catholic teaching is derived from the various verses. Many of the entries actually are in opposition to Catholic teaching.
3. The version fails to address most of the key moral, allegorical and spiritual aspects of the scriptures. So interested is it in pressing the theories of the Liberal critical scholars that it fails to derive the deep lessons and meanings of scripture as derived by Catholic and Eastern theologians down the ages. Any theological insight predating the modern liberal is expunged. Scriopture is seen as something to be criticised and explained away rather than learnt from.

 

[COPLAND_3]

I would say DEFINITELY NOT.

1. It adopts the Liberal-critical methodology as orthodoxy and as if it were fact. This means it is constantly questioning the truthfulness of the biblical accounts and the writers witness. The bible is assumed to have been written or re-written, not by the stated authors but by a set of nameless “redactors” who supposedly massaged, altered and twisted the text. Prophecies are never true prophecies, but fraudulently added in later, after the “prophecized” event occurred. Mary never said the Magnificat, the words were added later by someone fictionalising the account. Quite simply this simply promotes disbelief and an attitude of contempt for the veracity and truth of the scriptures.
2. The version fails to link in the bible with Catholic teaching or show how Catholic teaching is derived from the various verses. Many of the entries actually are in opposition to Catholic teaching.
3. The version fails to address most of the key moral, allegorical and spiritual aspects of the scriptures. So interested is it in pressing the theories of the Liberal critical scholars that it fails to derive the deep lessons and meanings of scripture as derived by Catholic and Eastern theologians down the ages. Any theological insight predating the modern liberal is expunged. Scriopture is seen as something to be criticised and explained away rather than learnt from.

Thank you very much for providing that!

 

[Bob_Aliano]

I would say DEFINITELY NOT.

1. It adopts the Liberal-critical methodology as orthodoxy and as if it were fact. This means it is constantly questioning the truthfulness of the biblical accounts and the writers witness. The bible is assumed to have been written or re-written, not by the stated authors but by a set of nameless “redactors” who supposedly massaged, altered and twisted the text. Prophecies are never true prophecies, but fraudulently added in later, after the “prophecized” event occurred. Mary never said the Magnificat, the words were added later by someone fictionalising the account. Quite simply this simply promotes disbelief and an attitude of contempt for the veracity and truth of the scriptures.
2. The version fails to link in the bible with Catholic teaching or show how Catholic teaching is derived from the various verses. Many of the entries actually are in opposition to Catholic teaching.
3. The version fails to address most of the key moral, allegorical and spiritual aspects of the scriptures. So interested is it in pressing the theories of the Liberal critical scholars that it fails to derive the deep lessons and meanings of scripture as derived by Catholic and Eastern theologians down the ages. Any theological insight predating the modern liberal is expunged. Scriopture is seen as something to be criticised and explained away rather than learnt from.

Really! Those are pretty strong condemnations considering the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur by very reputable persons including Patrick Cardinal Boyle and James A. Hickey, both Archbishops of Washington. Can we not trust the underwriting and approval of the Church in the literature we read? I expected some criticism and referral to better selections but not total condemnation!

 

[awatkins69]

Just because it has official approval doesn’t mean it is particularly preferable. Although the LifeTeen Mass has official approval, I wouldn’t recommend it. Likewise with the NAB.

 

[Bob_Aliano]

Just because it has official approval doesn’t mean it is particularly preferable. Although the LifeTeen Mass has official approval, I wouldn’t recommend it. Likewise with the NAB.

I can accept that although I’m not going to run out today and buy something different, the Bishops approval indicates that is not necessary, furthermore, I haven’t heard sufficient agreement or justification on what is considered best.

It troubles me that we so freely and publicly contradict the Bishops with our personal opinions. Having a point of view is fine but let’s not express that point of view in a manner that has some fictitious air of authority behind it. If we don’t like some decision by one or more Bishops we can write to them.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Really! Those are pretty strong condemnations considering the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur by very reputable persons including Patrick Cardinal Boyle and James A. Hickey, both Archbishops of Washington. Can we not trust the underwriting and approval of the Church in the literature we read? I expected some criticism and referral to better selections but not total condemnation!

I agree, and it’s the official translation used in American OF mass.
Copeland3:

I don’t like the NAB footnotes and introductions due to it being riddled with unorthodoxy.

I’m currently doing the Jeff Cavins Bible Study with my NAB and Catechism, I’ve not found any unorthodoxy. Can you provide some examples where the footnotes contradict Church Teaching?

 

[COPLAND_3]

I can accept that although I’m not going to run out today and buy something different, the Bishops approval indicates that is not necessary, furthermore, I haven’t heard sufficient agreement or justification on what is considered best.

It troubles me that we so freely and publicly contradict the Bishops with our personal opinions. Having a point of view is fine but let’s not express that point of view in a manner that has some fictitious air of authority behind it. If we don’t like some decision by one or more Bishops we can write to them.

There is nothing wrong with showing great displeasure with something that they approved. The only problem I have with what Axion said was

1. The version fails to link in the bible with Catholic teaching or show how Catholic teaching is derived from the various verses. Many of the entries actually are in opposition to Catholic teaching.

Mainly because it should have been clarified that it does not go against binding Doctrine, but it goes against 2000 years of Catholic school of thought, yet nothing that is essential to our Faith. But I was pretty sure that I knew what he meant.

 

[qui_est_ce]

There is nothing wrong with showing great displeasure with something that they approved. The only problem I have with what Axion said was Mainly because it should have been clarified that it does not go against binding Doctrine, but it goes against 2000 years of Catholic school of thought, yet nothing that is essential to our Faith. But I was pretty sure that I knew what he meant.

Well Scott Hahn and Jeff Cavins have offered some pretty unique perspectives. The best example I can think of is from Scott Hahn’s The Lamb’s Supper, on what is the meaning of John 19:30 “It is finished.”

 

[COPLAND_3]

I agree, and it’s the official translation used in American OF mass.

I’m currently doing the Jeff Cavins Bible Study with my NAB and Catechism, I’ve not found any unorthodoxy. Can you provide some examples where the footnotes contradict Church Teaching?

I should have been more clear, I meant unorthodoxy in a more generalized way, not concerning binding Doctrine, but in a traditional accepted norm of the 2000 years of Catholic thought.

 

[COPLAND_3]

Well Scott Hahn and Jeff Cavins have offered some pretty unique perspectives. The best example I can think of is from Scott Hahn’s The Lamb’s Supper, on what is the meaning of John 19:30 “It is finished.”

I don’t know Jeff Cavins. I am familiar with Scott Hahn. Over all Hahn is a traditional thinker, but he is also an original thinker at times.

 

[qui_est_ce]

I don’t know Jeff Cavins. I am familiar with Scott Hahn. Over all Hahn is a traditional thinker, but he is also an original thinker at times.

Scott Hahn’s unique perspectives substantiate Catholic Tradition.