What is your favorite commentary (and why)?

  • Thread starter Thread starter matthew1624
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

matthew1624

Guest
What is your favorite commentary (and why)?

My vote is for the Navarre commentary but I’m interested in what others think.

God Bless…
 
The Commentaries in the Douay - Rheims (2-volume edition from EWTN) are so complete and they take up half the Bible.
 
I do not have a single favorite commentary since I like to look at several sources when studying the Bible.
Saying that, the ones I use the most are:

  1. *]Ignatius (I wish they would bring them out alot faster) due to the commentary and questions in each of the commentaries. I also like the fact that the commentary is right below the passages.
    *]Collegeville because of the orderly arrangement of the commentary and it was used in a number of Scripture studies at my former parish.

    I have also used the Navarre as an additional resources. The one I do not like using is the New Jerome. It is not complete (i.e. Isiah) and is poorly organized.

    I have seen Sacra Pagina but have not bought any due to the price. There is also an Old Testament series by the same publsher, but I cannot remember the name.

    PF
 
I put the Ignatius because it is more apologetical and expository overall, and that is usually my purposes in hardcore Scripture study. I just wish it were complete!

I have almost the complete Navarre (so far) and it is definitely more inspirational and spiritually edifying. When reading for spiritual meditation or for longer explanations of how a certain Scripture passage is seen by the Church, I turn here. And the essays are top notch.
 
Fidelis said:
[snip]
. . . . I have almost the complete Navarre (so far) and it is definitely more inspirational and spiritually edifying. When reading for spiritual meditation or for longer explanations of how a certain Scripture passage is seen by the Church, I turn here. And the essays are top notch.
Click to expand...

I too like the Navarre, and for the same reasons.
 
I’ve used 4 of the 5 choices listed and have found the Navarre commentary most useful of all. Ignatius Press commentary comes in a close second IMO.

Peace…
 
New Jerome Biblical Commentary and the Sacra Pagina are my favourites.
 
I like commentaries from the Church Fathers such as Chrysostom, Theodoret of Cyrus, Jerome, etc, and later medieval commentators such as Aquinas, Nicholas of Lyra, Bonaventure, Hugh of St. Cher, etc. As for a complete commentary I love the Haydock Bible. For a modern commentary the Navarre Bible is second to none! But the ultimate commentary is the Glossa Ordinaria, unfortunately little of it has been translated into English. If I ever get the ability to provide the funds to do it, I will have it translated and oversee the project to have it published! That is my dream!!
 
Not surprisingly, I picked other because I like my commentary straight from the mouth of God Himself, particularly Genesis 3:22 where God speaks in the third person saying"Behold the man has become as one of us"

That he spoke in the third person has always seemed strange to me, I mean who is us?
Is he speaking of other gods? Is it a translational error? It certainly struck me as rather mysterious.

I went to Copland3’s bible study link in the previous post, but quickly became confused while reading commentary on Genesis 3:22 that made no distinction between the tree of knowledge and the tree of life. Two distinctly different trees in my understanding. Neither Adam or Eve according to my reading of Genesis ever ate of the tree of life, though both did eat of the tree of knowledge despite God’s warning not to, hence the fall.

Any opinion on that seeming contradictory commentary on the events in Genesis at your bible study site Copland3?

Respectfully,

jomoco
 
I like the Navarre it is very down to earth has quotes from the Fathers of the church and ccc quotes as well. I do not like the price you have to pay for it though. One day I will catch one in the used book store!
 
jomoco,

Don’t forget that God is part of the Holy Trinity. “One of us” was referring to (1) God the Father, (2) God the Son, and (3) God the Holy Spirit.

And it was an internal likeness - not external.
 
jomoco said:
I went to Copland3’s bible study link in the previous post, but quickly became confused while reading commentary on Genesis 3:22 that made no distinction between the tree of knowledge and the tree of life. Two distinctly different trees in my understanding. Neither Adam or Eve according to my reading of Genesis ever ate of the tree of life, though both did eat of the tree of knowledge despite God’s warning not to, hence the fall.

Any opinion on that seeming contradictory commentary on the events in Genesis at your bible study site Copland3?

Respectfully,

jomoco
Click to expand...
Yes, I do make a disctinction, but it is found in the second chapter where both trees are first mentioned. Here is a quote from it
2:9 The tree of life is a material tree, and so called because its fruit was endowed with a life-preserving power. Yet it had a spiritual signification; as the rock in the desert was of a material nature, and yet signified Christ. In like manner the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was a material tree, so called in view of future events; because, after eating of it, man was to learn, by experience of the consequent punishment, the difference between the good of obedience and the evil of rebellion. It may also be said to signify spiritually the free-will. (St. Thomas Aquinas)
Click to expand...
 
I was surprised to see left off of the poll the 1953 classic A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture initially published by Nelson, but now being reprinted at lulu.com.

I have yet to read an apologetics book without this Commentary being mentioned.

Although I have the 1975 version just for the sake of being a completist, the “new” scholarship adds very little to the first edition.
 
Salvatore123 said:
I was surprised to see left off of the poll the 1953 classic A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture initially published by Nelson, but now being reprinted at lulu.com.

I have yet to read an apologetics book without this Commentary being mentioned.

Although I have the 1975 version just for the sake of being a completist, the “new” scholarship adds very little to the first edition.
Click to expand...
I love the 1953 commentary! I found it in my schools library. But at home I was able to buy the original Jerome Biblical Commentary (1969) for $10. I found it very useful. What do others think of the original JBC?
 
This is probably a silly question, but I’ve only been able to look at the Ignatius commentaries on amazon. the individual books of the Bible Commentaries–are these essentially the same as found in the Ignatius NT Study Bible or greatly expanded?

thanks
 
I have the complete set of Navarre books, plus the Navarre NT in one volume. I think this has additional references, particularly from the works of Pope Benedict.

I also have Orchards Catholic Commentary, and the Ignatius NT commentary by Hahn and Cavins. For me the Navarre is the easiest to read and the most complete. My version of Orchard is the original from the 1950s and the writing is very small. I also have the Haydock, which is the least complete (well if you ignore the fact that the Ignatius is missing the OT, except Genesis).

Perhaps also work looking at - but very, very expensive and not complete, are the CDs / DVDs by Scott Hahn on individual books of the Bible and by Jeff Cavins from the Bible Timeline series. Acts is about $90 for the CDs, plus $40 for the workbook. It is that work book that gives you notes from the lectures. The lectures for Acts for example are almost 20 hours long.

I also like the Notes in the NAB. I know, I know, some may seem a little “iffy”, but for $19 it gives enough to keep you learning with very little expense and give you that little push that an un-noted Bible would’nt.

Just my two-penneth worth.

Hal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top