The Jerome Biblical Commentary vs. The "New" Jerome Biblical Commentary

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lepanto
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Crumpy said:
I think any 21-st century commentary should be 1) faithful to the Church, 2) integrate the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 3) consciously address the four “senses” of scripture that are outlined in Dei Verbum (Vatican II), 4) incorporate the “canonical” form of exegesis, which requires one to consider the context of the entire Bible (especially relating the OT and the NT), 5) have a lot of practical features like a respectable number of cross-references when appropriate, and have maps, drawings, diagrams, and the like, 6) have some sense of the modern teaching of papal encyclicals, when appropriate, 7) come with a CD version of the scripture for word searches and other information, viz. incorporate an “exhaustive” concordance of terms, with the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek dictionary, and 8) writings of the Early Church Fathers and Doctors of the Church.

Why not put it all in one package?
Click to expand...
It would be impossible for a single commentary to do everything you’re asking here! Commentaries are used by many different people for many different reasons. An exegetical commentary would differ substantially from an expository commentary. A commentary used by a pastor to prepare homilies might be very different from a commentary used by a professor to research historical context. A critical commentary used by a scholar would be of no use for someone who wants a devotional commentary.

Me, I use the “Navarre” Commentary series (which uses the Catholic RSV and the New Vulgate) and the “Ancient Christian Commentary” series (which also uses the RSV and incorporates the wisdom of the Early Church Fathers) the most. But I have (or have access to) many, many other commentaries.

It all depends on how you want to use the commentary.

Blessings,
 
I agree with Edwin. The JBC and NJBC reflect mainstream bible scholarship by Catholic commentators.
Click to expand...
This is correct. Ray Brown and company are not radical nutjobs like the fellows of the Jesus Seminar; they are the very definition of mainstream historical-critical Biblical scholarship. I recommend either the JBC or the NJBC if that’s what you’re looking for. But as others have said, they’re not devotional commentaries; I can study with them, but I don’t think I could pray with them.
 
Hmmm If you get both the New Jerome and the International Bible Commentary you get both the conservative and liberal catholic biblical interpretation.
 
Historical criticism is only one tool that is used in biblical scholarship- If you only use that one tool you are not doing your job as a scholar.
 
juliamajor said:
Historical criticism is only one tool that is used in biblical scholarship- If you only use that one tool you are not doing your job as a scholar.
Click to expand...
You are not doing your job as a Christian theologian, certainly. And I’d say that all Christian scholars should be theologians to some extent, or at least should be aware of the theological implications of what they are doing. And this is most obviously the case when you are a scholar of the Bible.

However, historical-critical scholarship of the Bible stands alone as a secular method of studying the Bible. A secular scholar of the Bible (and such a calling is both legitimate and needed until the Kingdom comes) is doing his or her job perfectly well by using only historical criticism. But I agree with you that Christians should take a broader approach–the Church needs more than just historical criticism. In fact, historical criticism in and of itself is not directly useful to the Church–it’s an ancillary discipline.

Edwin
 
Contarini said:
You are not doing your job as a Christian theologian, certainly. And I’d say that all Christian scholars should be theologians to some extent, or at least should be aware of the theological implications of what they are doing. And this is most obviously the case when you are a scholar of the Bible.

However, historical-critical scholarship of the Bible stands alone as a secular method of studying the Bible. A secular scholar of the Bible (and such a calling is both legitimate and needed until the Kingdom comes) is doing his or her job perfectly well by using only historical criticism. But I agree with you that Christians should take a broader approach–the Church needs more than just historical criticism. In fact, historical criticism in and of itself is not directly useful to the Church–it’s an ancillary discipline.

Edwin
Click to expand...
Agreed!👍
 
RedSoxFan said:
Hmmm If you get both the New Jerome and the International Bible Commentary you get both the conservative and liberal catholic biblical interpretation.
Click to expand...
Believe me, you can get a lot more “liberal” than the New Jerome!
 
David_Zampino said:
Believe me, you can get a lot more “liberal” than the New Jerome!
Click to expand...
David,

No doubt! Still which ones where you thinking of that were more liberal than the New Jerome? Sorry it took so long to check this out. School got in the way.

As for the thread I think this has potential to be developed again. So I’ll try to kick it off. I bought a Jerome Biblical Commentary on Amazon used for $10 and it was worth it easily.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top