Which footnotes do you trust?

[Tom7]

Hello everyone.

I love the notes and footnotes for the NJB and also the NABre. However sometimes they are at odds. Does anyone know if one has more authority than the other?

Regards

Tom

 

[DIERM]

If your understanding of the Magisterium’s take on scripture is limited to footnotes, you will encounter these difficulties.

Rather than footnotes, I have found reading and studying parallel scriptures, searching historic and modern commentaries, the writings of the Church Fathers, Church Documents, and the Catechism to give a more unified and final understanding of scripture.

 

[BartholomewB]

How seriously at odds? Do they flatly contradict one another, or is it more a question of the editors selecting the kind of information they thought their readers would want to find in their footnotes? Can you give an example or two?

The Bibles I use most for their footnotes are the NJB and the original 1966 Jerusalem Bible. The differences are greater than I expected, but I don’t think I ever found a contradiction.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

In my opinion, the most reliable commentaries are the ones written by the Church Fathers. Try the Catena Aurea assembled by St Thomas Aquinas, or the Great Commentary assembled by Cornelius LaPide. The Haydock commentary is also very good.

You can find all three here https://www.ecatholic2000.com/library2/library.shtml

 

[strita]

You haven’t given us an example. Only those who have compared those two Bibles can thus respond to your question.

If you give us an example, perhaps a wider range of people could jump in.

One such direct contradiction I found was about whether the marriage of Ruth and Boaz in the Book of Ruth was a levirate marriage. A Jewish commentary I read said that is was, and the (Catholic) New Jerome Biblical Commentary (c. 1992) said it was not. I tend to agree with the Jewish point of view on the question. See what I mean? An example would help, and it’s a very very big question anyway to pick a winner between the two versions you mentioned. The matter probably is one of opinion (an opinion about opinions, to be specific).