Where can I purchase a good Catholic STUDY bible?

[rarndt01]

I have searched the web for a good Catholic Study bible. One with lots of cross references and study notes. So far, nothing. Robert Sungenis has a study book on the gospel of Matthew, but that is it. There is the NAB and the DR bible, but that doesn’t give much to be desired at all. Why don’t Catholic apologist put out study bibles like the evangelical ministers do? Can anyone offer any help or ideas?

 

[kmktexas]

Try looking for the Navarre Bible Commentary. It is based on the NRS-CE Bible translation. It has extensive notes and cross references. Each volume covers a section of the Bible (ie Pentateuch, Joshua through Kings, the Captivity Epistles). These volumes have been coming out steadily one-by-one over the last several years. I am not sure they have completed the entire Bible yet but a quick check on the internet looks like they are pretty close to finished if not completely so.

If you like the DR Bible, the Haydock commentary is great. I think that TAN publishers carries it.

I am told there is a study Bible version of the Jerusalem Bible. The JB is my favorite translation but the study version might be out of print.

Happy hunting.

 

[Fidelis]

The Navarre is far from complete as they still lack the most of the wisdom books and all of the prophets. All of the NT is done and the Pentatuech, historical books, and Psalms/Song of Solomon. They are, however, excellent commentaries. If you start buying them now one at a time, you’ll probably have the whole set by the time they’re finished. Well worth it, IMHO.

Another terrific (and also incomplete) series is the Ignatius Study Bible series being put together by Scott Hahn and his associates. They have completed Matthew through Corinthians. When this is completed it should be THE premier Catholic study Bible. You can get them now one volume at a time for under $10 each.

 

[Maccabees]

Not true The Navarre Bible has the Wisdom Books

Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiasters, Wisdom and Sirach.
They have all the NT and most of the OT except the later prophets the series is getting close to completion far more complete than the Scott hahn series which is good but they haven’t got the NT done yet.

 

[Fidelis]

Maccabees:

Not true The Navarre Bible has the Wisdom Books

Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiasters, Wisdom and Sirach.
They have all the NT and most of the OT except the later prophets the series is getting close to completion far more complete than the Scott hahn series which is good but they haven’t got the NT done yet.

I stand corrected – and happily so!!

four-courts-press.ie/cgi/bookshow.cgi?file=NavWisdom.xml

 

[tkdnick]

There is a New American Bible in study version. It’s called the Catholic Answer Bible. Not only does it have cross references, etc., it also has insert pages that describe Catholic beliefs and Biblical passages that back those beliefs. It can be purchased from Fireside Catholic Publishing. www.thecatholicanswerbible.com

 

[dalcent]

Hi there,

I am a little concerned about those styling themselves ‘conservative’ Catholics who openly reject the advanced biblical studies approved by the Holy See.

I am a layman who has completed a MA in Catholic Theology and it should be remembered that the renewal in biblical studies, prompted both by Pius XII and later the Second Vaticanum, is completely papal and magisterial. The fruits of such biblical studies are reflected in the scholarship found in the NAB and the New Jerusalem Bible. Buy the NJB larger, complete edition to make sure you have all the notes.

I am a little sore on this point having struggled on my own as a fundamentalist for many years unable accept their biblical ‘scholarship’. We don’t need dumbed-down Study Bibles written by laymen.

The notes in the New Jerusalem Bible are by the French Dominican Bible School in Jerusalem; one of only two bodies in the world that can award Catholic doctorates in Scriptural studies.

Some of the attitudes expressed by ‘conservatives’ sound like they belong in the Society of Pius X. I consider myself ‘conservative’ in as far I am a magisterially-led Catholic. I’m certainly not a liberal or progressive.

Maybe this question would be legimate if it asked ‘Where can I purchase a good Catholic DEVOTIONAL bible?’

Dalcent

 

[Fidelis]

dalcent:

I am a little concerned about those styling themselves ‘conservative’ Catholics who openly reject the advanced biblical studies approved by the Holy See.

As far as this thread goes, I see nothing that has been recommended that falls under this condemnation.

I am a layman who has completed a MA in Catholic Theology and it should be remembered that the renewal in biblical studies, prompted both by Pius XII and later the Second Vaticanum, is completely papal and magisterial. The fruits of such biblical studies are reflected in the scholarship found in the NAB and the New Jerusalem Bible.

The Magisterium has not embraced all the fruits of these studies and has warned of excessive reliance on certain methods employed, such a the historical-critical method, a method which for many people, tends to suck the life out of a fruitful reading of Scripture by downplaying the supernatural and substituting it with humanistic speculation. Perhaps some may manage to derive some benefit from this, but most people who read the Scriptures to encounter God will be left cold. An interesting poll for this forum would be to see how many people think the NAB footnotes and prefaces, for example, are a harm or a hinderance.

I am a little sore on this point having struggled on my own as a fundamentalist for many years unable accept their biblical ‘scholarship’. We don’t need dumbed-down Study Bibles written by laymen.

Are you speaking about any Study Bible in particular? The Navarre Study Bibles are being put out by the University of Navarre in Spain. The Ignatius Study Bibles are under the editorship of Dr. Scott Hahn, Professor of Theology from the Franciscan University of Steubenville. In what ways are these works dumbed down?

 

[Maccabees]

Well the controversy depends on if you accept textual Biblical criticism or not. Navarre and the Ignatius series stays away from this and quotes form the fathers and magesterium. THe NAB and New Jerusalem Bible include the latest in scholarship which would include textual criticism. THis is a type of interpretation foreign to the fathers of the church and non existant in the church prior to Vatican 2.

But this type of criticism dominates the commentary of the New Jerome Biblical Commentary and the newer catholic Bibles that I have mentioned. They have the Imprampteur so in some sense they are approved. There is some good that can come from such shcolarship but there can be times that these things are merely one scholars theories but are presented as church teaching. Therin lie the problem these commentaries don’t make opinion from formal church teaching explicit.

 

[mayra_hart]

at this moment iam doing a bible study by scott hahn. is online an is the beginner course. i can’t say about others bible studies,butthe one iam doing up to this point is a very good one.one thing there is a lot of reading an to be honest it takes time to go from one part to the next. also he do a lot of parallels between the ot an nt., this help understanding some of the scriptures. well god bless you all .

 

[dalcent]

Hi there,

I understand that the Navarre Bible studies are very good and I have recently purchased Scott Hahn’s Study on Romans.

Nevertheless, I think it is still obvious there is some animosity being expressed here towards the Magisterium.

Firstly, rarndt01 states ‘the NAB and the DR bible…doesn’t give much to be desired at all.’ Fidelis you write: ‘An interesting poll for this forum would be to see how many people think the NAB footnotes and prefaces, for example, are a harm or a hindrance.’ Frankly, we follow the guidance of the Magisterium who have put the NAB footnotes and prefaces on the Vatican website and stated that this is now the approved version for American Catholics. What has a popular poll got to do with it? Is the Church a democracy?

Nor can I agree with observation that the scholarship and textual criticism found in the NAB and New Jerusalem Bible is ‘foreign to the fathers of the church and non existent in the church prior to Vatican 2.’ (Was Vatican 2 bad?) This is certainly false. The Church fathers were some of the most educated men in history, and certainly not fundamentalists.

Read these extracts from **Eusebius of Caesarea, Church History
Book III, Chapter III: **

One epistle of Peter, that called the first, is acknowledged as genuine. And this the ancient elders used freely in their own writings as an undisputed work. But we have learned that his extant second Epistle does not belong to the canon; yet, as it has appeared profitable to many, it has been used with the other Scriptures…Such are the writings that bear the name of Peter, only one of which I know to be genuine and acknowledged by the ancient elders…

Yet for some, a preface questioning or denying Petrine authorship for 2 Peter is considered ‘modernism.’

And as regards Textual Criticism, Origen spent years of his life compiling the Hexpla a monumental work of textual criticism (Quoting from the Catholic Encyclopaedia 1917):

Hexapla: The name given to Origen’s edition of the Old Testament in Hebrew and Greek, the most colossal critical production of antiquity. This work was urgently demanded by the confusion which prevailed in Origen’s day regarding the true text of Scripture. The Church had adopted the Septuagint for its own; this differed from the Hebrew not only by the addition of several books and passages but also by innumerable variations of text, due partly to the ordinary process of corruption in the transcription of ancient books, partly to the culpable temerity, as Origen called it, of correctors who used not a little freedom in making “corrections”, additions, and suppressions, partly to mistakes in translation…

Regards

Dalcent

 

[Fidelis]

dalcent:

Fidelis you write: ‘An interesting poll for this forum would be to see how many people think the NAB footnotes and prefaces, for example, are a harm or a hindrance.’ Frankly, we follow the guidance of the Magisterium who have put the NAB footnotes and prefaces on the Vatican website and stated that this is now the approved version for American Catholics. What has a popular poll got to do with it? Is the Church a democracy?

I wasn’t implying that it was, or that we should have a popular vote on what constitutes good biblical scholarship, only that it would be interesting to ask around. I was just making the point that if the only ones that can get much out of the footnotes in the NAB are baby-boomer ex-nuns and ivory tower academics, what good are they? I don’t say that the NAB has no redeeming value (I occasionally find it very helpful in preparing Bible studies), but I am speaking from my own experience that many of our fellow Catholics that have a hunger for God’s Word find the NAB commentary “sterile,” to put it nicely, and feel like they’ve discovered a treasure trove when they discover more accessable, but orthodox, Catholic material such as that found in the Navarre and Ignatius series.

The fact that the NAB is featured on the Vatican website doesn’t mean that we are obligated to use it, especially if there are legitimate, orthodox alternatives. You can lead a horse to water…

I think I’ll go start that poll now.

 

[Maccabees]

dalcent:

Nor can I agree with observation that the scholarship and textual criticism found in the NAB and New Jerusalem Bible is ‘foreign to the fathers of the church and non existent in the church prior to Vatican 2.’ (Was Vatican 2 bad?) This is certainly false. The Church fathers were some of the most educated men in history, and certainly not fundamentalists.
Regards

Dalcent

Yes they were not fundamentalist not everything was taken literally but they did not interpret the Bible in neo-historical Critical Method that is common to Raymond Brown and Hans Kueng.
There is a big difference on how the fathers used this and how theologians abuse this practive today.
In general the method belongs to recent centuries and the few instances that the church fathers used this method they were careful to observe its limitations it was not the end of all of sholarship it was a compliment to overall interpretation not the only way they viewed scripture. Most of the time it was used for the more mytholigical earlier sequences in the early chapters of Genesis and to tie in secondary typology to the New Testament fullfillments.
But in recent times it has been used as the end all for sholarship and abused to the point not only does it deny the supernatural things without proof, deny anything beyond human reason, said the mysteries of faith could be explained away by reason.
THe early church fathers rarely used this outside of the Genesis stories but this has carried on to explain away all of the New Testament. THe church fathers never did this. Jesus miracles were not perceive as myth or type but actual aoccurences
Brown and Kueng have done this in a manner contrary to traditional church interpretation.
Vatican 2 denies the validity of such spurious speculation but like many things since then has been abused “in the Spirit of Vatican 2” while no such declaration of such abuse of scriptural exegesis gives such permission."
In fact Kueng got so bizarre with his new decrees using his neo-historical method that the Vatican has quite rightly declared that Kueng is not a catholic theologian. But of course he publsihed several catholic books claiming he was such and the damage was done as his works were thought of the latest and greatest in cathlic scholarship but alas it was heresey.
And many of the occurences we see in Raymond Browns work is not that far behing Kueng.
But the tide may be turning with Kueng kicked out the church and Brown recently deceased their influence may be waning to a return to a more traditionales exegesis of scripture. Yes you scholars Angels really did exist and Jesus really did manifest miracles.

 

[luckyirishguy14]

My priest gave me a great Bible for Confirmation present. It’s called the “NEW OXFORD ANNOTATED BIBLE WITH THE APOCRYPHA.” It is RSV Bible, but my priest notes things every Sunday that I have Altarboy duty to watch out for. May/Metzger provide the footnotes, but my priest has warned me about these two. BTW, can anyone tell me about May/Metzger? I don’t go on often, but maybe you could send me a personal message, and you could get back to me. Thanks.