L
Lepanto
Guest
I am thinking of buying one of these, as I currently have neither. Which would you recommend, and why? How are they different?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The Jerome Biblical Commentary vs. The "New" Jerome Biblical Commentary
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
D
David_Zampino
Guest
If you can find the original “Jerome Biblical Commentary” you are a fortunate person! It’s been out of print for decades and is hard to find. To my mind, the original is the better of the two. In either case, be advised that you will be dealing with a significant amount of “higher criticism” which some will find problematic.I am thinking of buying one of these, as I currently have neither. Which would you recommend, and why? How are they different?
IMHO (and in my teaching) I point out that higher criticism is a tool – and like any other tool, it can be used – and misused. Not everything proposed by higher critical methods are of value – not by a long shot – but by the same token, I try not to “throw the baby out with the bathwater”.
Hope that this helps.
L
Lepanto
Guest
Thanks for the advice. I see many used copies of the original version on Amazon for about $20. Maybe I’ll pick up one of those.
B
buffalo
Guest
L
Lepanto
Guest
Thank you! Nice find!
J
juliamajor
Guest
I use both Jeromes,. Collegeville,Harper Collins and various others.Some commentaries are muddy so one can clarify what in another is unclear.
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
The Haydock is the best you can get. I heard the New Jerome Bible Commentary isn’t even worth the paper it was printed on. If anyone can find where to buy a Jerome Bible Commentary, let me know. I won’t by the new jerome Bible commentary just the original.
L
Lepanto
Guest
I am unfamiliar with the “New” version’s alleged flaws. How does it compare to the original version?I won’t by the new jerome Bible commentary just the original.
B
buffalo
Guest
Historical Criticism gone overboard.I am unfamiliar with the “New” version’s alleged flaws. How does it compare to the original version?
A
adowcday
Guest
Honestly, there has been a lot of really important biblical scholarship since the 19th century. The New Jerome Bible Commentary is a good one-volume commentary and updates the earlier version. Modern historical, textual, narrative, sociological and other approaches to criticism have added immensely to our understanding of scripture, both Old Testament and New.The Haydock is the best you can get. I heard the New Jerome Bible Commentary isn’t even worth the paper it was printed on. If anyone can find where to buy a Jerome Bible Commentary, let me know. I won’t by the new jerome Bible commentary just the original.
B
buffalo
Guest
Has any dogma or doctrine been overturned by this “scholarship”?Honestly, there has been a lot of really important biblical scholarship since the 19th century. The New Jerome Bible Commentary is a good one-volume commentary and updates the earlier version. Modern historical, textual, narrative, sociological and other approaches to criticism have added immensely to our understanding of scripture, both Old Testament and New.
A
adowcday
Guest
I’m not sure why that question is relevant. Biblical scholarship allows us to understand the message and meaning of the bible. That has a value in and of itself. By the way, you seem to dismiss 20th century bible scholarship in its entirety by your use of quotation marks. Raymond Brown, Joseph Fitzmyer, John Meier, Daniel Harrington, Luke Timothy Johnson, Joseph Blenkinsopp, etc., etc.: you judge their work to be “non-scholarship”? By what criteria? I guess it’s a lot easier to condemn the whole lot than to read and understand what they’ve contributed.Has any dogma or doctrine been overturned by this “scholarship”?
B
buffalo
Guest
If you understand the limitations then it is OK. The Pope has recently written on the weakness of the HCM. He admits that it has brought new insights to our organic understanding of Scripture, but it cannot stand by itself as a certain method.I’m not sure why that question is relevant. Biblical scholarship allows us to understand the message and meaning of the bible. That has a value in and of itself. By the way, you seem to dismiss 20th century bible scholarship in its entirety by your use of quotation marks. Raymond Brown, Joseph Fitzmyer, John Meier, Daniel Harrington, Luke Timothy Johnson, Joseph Blenkinsopp, etc., etc.: you judge their work to be “non-scholarship”? By what criteria? I guess it’s a lot easier to condemn the whole lot than to read and understand what they’ve contributed.
C
centurionguard
Guest
Lapendo
It’s published by Prentice-Hall, Inc. 1968.
Have you tried Tan Books they might have a older copy of (“The Jerome Biblical Commentary”) I’m not sure if you could categorize my Jerome Biblical Commentary as a newer version or not that I purchased at a public book fair a few years ago.The Jerome Biblical Commentary vs. The “New” Jerome Biblical Commentary
I am thinking of buying one of these, as I currently have neither. Which would you recommend, and why? How are they different?
It’s published by Prentice-Hall, Inc. 1968.
C
Contarini
Guest
The New Jerome is a very moderate example of historical criticism. But I can see why some people would think that even moderate historical criticism is “overboard”!Historical Criticism gone overboard.
Edwin
L
Lepanto
Guest
How do you define “moderate”?The New Jerome is a very moderate example of historical criticism. But I can see why some people would think that even moderate historical criticism is “overboard”!
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
There’s a spectrum of opinion in the guild of Biblical scholars, and the scholars who put together the New Jerusalem Bible would be at or to the right of the center of that spectrum.How do you define “moderate”?
Edwin
A
adowcday
Guest
I agree with Edwin. The JBC and NJBC reflect mainstream bible scholarship by Catholic commentators.There’s a spectrum of opinion in the guild of Biblical scholars, and the scholars who put together the New Jerusalem Bible would be at or to the right of the center of that spectrum.
Edwin
C
Crumpy
Guest
I was shocked by what I read in the NJBC, in some of the essays especially those written by Fr. Raymond Brown.
I have found a couple good essays in there, on St. Paul. In there I learned that he had two names, Saul and Paul. I guess one of these is Hebrew-oriented and one is Greek-oriented, but he had two names.
The bigger point is, NJBC spends too much time on surveying all the methods of criticism, and there are many. This is not a devotional-type commentary, IMHO.
I’m looking forward to the Ignatius Bible, when it is completed.
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?
I think the Ignatius Bible is headed in that direction.
I have found a couple good essays in there, on St. Paul. In there I learned that he had two names, Saul and Paul. I guess one of these is Hebrew-oriented and one is Greek-oriented, but he had two names.
The bigger point is, NJBC spends too much time on surveying all the methods of criticism, and there are many. This is not a devotional-type commentary, IMHO.
I’m looking forward to the Ignatius Bible, when it is completed.
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?
I think the Ignatius Bible is headed in that direction.
C
CalCatholic
Guest
There is a new series of Catholic Commentaries coming out now called: ‘Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture’. So far they have released a book on The Gospel of Mark, and one on 'First & Second Timothy, Titus. They are released through Baker books, and are available through Amazon.com. I really like this series, they are based on the NAB (because this is the Bible the majority of Catholics own) but also refer differences with the RSV and even the NIV. This commentary uses tradition and a lot less HCM and is very readable. I think Scott Hahn is going to be writing one of the upcoming books. They are parperback and affordable, 12-15 dollars at Amazon.Thanks for the advice. I see many used copies of the original version on Amazon for about $20. Maybe I’ll pick up one of those.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.