William Barclay: Daily Study Bible Series.

[Qwikness]

Does anybody know about William Barclay? I started reading a bible study book on Romans but may stop. I’m thinking of telling my priest to get rid of this volume set.
I recently went to my parish’s library and picked up Daily Study Bible Series by William Barclay on the book of Romans. I thought it must be okay since it is at the church. I got half way through it, read about the author on the back and it said he was Scottish, I thought that was odd for a Catholic from Scotland. Then I saw he was a minister at Trinity College, I thought that was odd for a Catholic to be called a minister and that Trinity College sounded Anglican. Then I saw it was published at Westminster John Knox Press. I thought that’s odd for a Catholic publishing company to be called John Knox!
Then I looked up William Barclay and found some unusual things. Denied the virgin birth, denied Jesus walking on water, denied the multiplying of loaves and fish, and I think denied the divinity.
Although the commentary is very good and I have not found anything crazy yet. I may stop before I do find something weird. Afterall I want a Catholic understanding of Romans. Should I tell my priest about this collection?

 

[Polycarp1]

Yes tell your priest. I do the same thing with a small Catholic Library collection. Some strange things can find their way in there and we have to be vigilent, Recently I removed and reported two publications not approved by the Church.

 

[Kaemarie]

I think I would at least speak to him about it…I have read many books that were not catholic authors that are good, however even I might have a hard time reading a book with an author that does not believe in the trinity. I would always be wondering what other opinions he had that he would be reading into the book of Romans, possibably having an influence on myself.
I will keep checking on this post…interesting. It can go for many other books as well…wonder if there is a catholic website that could let us know if it be safe for reading. I would like to think that any book one gets from the church library would be on a safe list…be a good thing to check out. Yep, I would have a chat with the priest.

 

[april32010]

i myself read this series ( they were free,i paid too much) when i first came into the Church,i wish i could remember what i found off about them .i threw them away .good riddance. as you did i investigated the author ,bit of a nut job in his autobiography he wrote, “I am a convinced universalist. I believe that in the end all men will be gathered into the love of God”

 

[chaunceygardner]

I am a big fan of William Barclay so I have to respectfully disagree with the positions stated here. Barclay is one of the most respected bible scholars of the past 60 years or so. His commentaries on each of the Gospels and Epistles are considered classics and many have been through several re-prints since they were first written from the 1950’s through the 1970’s. They can be found in Catholic college and seminary libraries. I have noted references and quotes of Barclay by Catholic priests and bishops, both written and verbal (homilies, talks, lectures).

He was a member of the Church of Scotland, so obviously does not write from a Catholic point of view. Yet, I have not found him to be anti-Catholic, and he includes Catholic and Orthdox teachings and positions in his discussions, without disparaging them. When he gives his opinion, it is clearly just that. He does not present it as doctrinal truth but as his view of a point of discussion.

From a lay perspective, his discussions and explanations have been wonderfully clear and straightforward, and have helped me look at many bible passages and entire books with much better understanding. It is quite revealing that the OP didn’t question the validity of what they read until they learned more about Barclay’s religion and background. Also, that the OP said “the commentary is very good and I have not found anything crazy yet”. Perhaps that is an indication that it is worth reading and perhaps why you find it on parish, college and seminary bookshelves.

Final Note: Barclay’s denial (or different view) of some teachings which are held by both Catholics and Protestants really should mostly be a non-issue. His beliefs don’t seem to affect his knowledge and understanding of the bible passages he is commenting on. And his positions can be easily discerned when he makes them, and if they are not “orthodox” to a Catholic, so what? It shouldn’t be the first nor last time you run into a contrarian viewpoint. For example, at a Lenten talk this year a Catholic priest gave an interpretation of the story of the loaves and fishes that was the same as Barclay’s. And that isn’t the first time I have heard or read such an interpretation from a Catholic speaker or writer.

If you are well grounded in your knowledge of the faith and understanding of Catholic teachings, William Barclay’s commentaries should not be a problem; rather, they may help you see more clearly and deeply the meaning immersed in many bible passages. I would highly recommend them.

 

[chaunceygardner]

Out of curiosity, I did a little quick research of several Catholic libraries and here is what I found.

The libraries of three Catholic colleges in the midwest contained 14, 12 and 24 Barclay titles, respectively. A couple of southern Catholic schools have 20 and 60 Barclay books. A western U.S. Catholic university has 31 Barclay titles. A major Catholic university in the east has 60, another has 164!. Two seminary libraries I checked had 28 and 54, respectively. I could not find any Catholic college library that did not have some Barclay books.

So, if you are going to lobby to have Barclay’s books removed from the parish bookshelves, you should really then move on to Catholic universities and seminaries. But wait! Even the Pontifical Gregorian University library in Rome has books by William Barclay.

So perhaps Barclay’s biblical commentaries have some value for Catholics, too!

 

[Isaiah45_9]

In order to properly identify and fight a heresy you must first understand what it is that the heresy is proposing. So in a College environment it is more than acceptable to have various and different writing in order to actually read them before passing judgement in regards to what is and isn’t part of Catholic teaching. Kind of like having to read Darwin and what he actually wrote, instead of making a decision on what others say that he wrote. Same rule goes for any other literature.

That does not mean, in any shape or form, that the teaching is good or accepted by the Church.

 

[ChurchSoldier]

I would not be too concerned. As you and others have mentioned, you realize the troubling parts.

I have the New Jerome Biblical Commentary edited by 3 Roman Catholic Theologians which speaks of the JDEP theory for the Pentateuch. The theory, brought about in the 18th Century basically undermines the authenticity of Scripture. In other cases even some of the early church fathers who wrote foundational concepts of church doctrine went off the deep end afterwards and moved into heresies.

The writer’s background does not guarantee accuracy or inaccuracy. What is important is to develop a habit of researching the background of the author / editor, which you did , then holding them up to traditional church teaching and doctrine, so you can see where their theology influences their writings.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Although I think Barclay could be commended for his attempts to write accessible commentaries on the Scriptures, I can recall reading his commentary on Mark and thinking it was pretty outdated and dumbed-down.

There’s a lot better material out there; I wouldn’t waste my time on it. Life is short

 

[chaunceygardner]

In order to properly identify and fight a heresy you must first understand what it is that the heresy is proposing. So in a College environment it is more than acceptable to have various and different writing in order to actually read them before passing judgement in regards to what is and isn’t part of Catholic teaching. Kind of like having to read Darwin and what he actually wrote, instead of making a decision on what others say that he wrote. Same rule goes for any other literature.

That does not mean, in any shape or form, that the teaching is good or accepted by the Church.

That is a valid point, as I could never quite understand how one could combat heresy if one had not even read what the “heretic” said.

However, from my own experience and observation, it seems that Barclay’s books are used by Catholics in a more positive manner, to help the readers of those books (even Catholic ones) gain a deeper understanding of the various books of the New Testament, and of specific passages. For example, in books written by Catholic theologians and bible scholars I have found quotes of and references to the writings of William Barclay. And I as stated in my first post, several references by Catholic priests and bishops, often when commenting themselves on a particular Sunday scripture reading. I suspect that Barclay is held in high esteem by many Catholic scholars.

Just because someone holds a position regarding a doctrine that is not in step with what the Catholic Church teaches does not make EVERYTHING they write or say wrong or heretical. Those who want to automatically diss him and his books, toss them out, or just ignore them, because he is not Catholic or because he has differing views on some teachings, do so at the risk of missing out on gaining an abundance of scriptural knowledge and wisdom from a master bible scholar.
Dave Noonan:

think Barclay could be commended for his attempts to write accessible commentaries on the Scriptures, I can recall reading his commentary on Mark and thinking it was pretty outdated and dumbed-down.

There’s a lot better material out there; I wouldn’t waste my time on it. Life is short.

Gee, that was the first Barclay book I read and one of my favorites. I think rather than “dumbing down”, Barclay does make his commentaries easier to follow, but with more detail and explanation than most other bible scholars (and often more alternative renderings and explanations). And life IS short, so reading Barclay is (for me) one way to get the most out of what little time I have remaining.

 

[andrewstx]

I have found esp when the library is new that lay people donate volumes which are placed on the shelves to increase the collection without much prying into the contents of said volumes. Especially when the donor is a big financial contributor that no-one wants to offend.

When I was attending a college in it’s second year I read through some of the books at the Campus Christian center library and found a two volume set called “Catholcism Against Itself”. These books contained shocking new like Benedictines make a sell Benedictine liquor lol.

I pointed that out to the director and those books disappeared.

 

[maklavan]

Yes tell your priest. I do the same thing with a small Catholic Library collection. Some strange things can find their way in there and we have to be vigilent, Recently I removed and reported two publications not approved by the Church.

We must be careful that we do not end up like Hitler,who ordered the burning of great books because they did not conform to his warped views. William Barclay was a very devout and sincere Christian, who worked hard to bring people closer to God. I once read a commentary of his that dealt with eight lines of Scripture. It was 15 pages long. Nothing superficial there.

 

[april32010]

William Barclay was a very devout and sincere Christian.

if one doesn’t believe in the Trinity ,they are not Christian.

“Nowhere does the New Testament identify Jesus with God.”

 

[Nicea325]

Does anybody know about William Barclay? I started reading a bible study book on Romans but may stop. I’m thinking of telling my priest to get rid of this volume set.
I recently went to my parish’s library and picked up Daily Study Bible Series by William Barclay on the book of Romans. I thought it must be okay since it is at the church. I got half way through it, read about the author on the back and it said he was Scottish, I thought that was odd for a Catholic from Scotland. Then I saw he was a minister at Trinity College, I thought that was odd for a Catholic to be called a minister and that Trinity College sounded Anglican. Then I saw it was published at Westminster John Knox Press. I thought that’s odd for a Catholic publishing company to be called John Knox!
Then I looked up William Barclay and found some unusual things. Denied the virgin birth, denied Jesus walking on water, denied the multiplying of loaves and fish, and I think denied the divinity.
Although the commentary is very good and I have not found anything crazy yet. I may stop before I do find something weird. Afterall I want a Catholic understanding of Romans. Should I tell my priest about this collection?

Ah yeah! It is not in accord with Catholic teaching…it is off base-ya think?

 

[chaunceygardner]

if one doesn’t believe in the Trinity ,they are not Christian.

The statement you attribute to Barkley could be attributed to several Catholic theologians and scholars, as well as some of the first disciples. And is the statement correct? Could it have actually read “as God”? That would be an arguable statement. What is the source?

Here is an actual quote from the aforementioned Gospel of Mark where Barclay says this:

No man sees all of God’s truth all at once. One of the dangers of a certain type of evangelism is that it encourages the idea that when a man has taken his decision for Christ he is a full-grown Christian. One of the dangers of Church membership is that it can be presented in such a way as to imply that when person becomes a member he has come to the end of the road….the decision and membership are the beginning of the road….He would still have to go on growing in grace, and learning more about the infinite wonder and beauty of Christ.

Doesn’t sound like he is saying Christ is less than God, since he calls him “infinite”.

Here is another:

We may think that we have little talent or ability or substance to give to Jesus. That is no reason for a hopeless pessimism such as the disciples had. If we put ourselves into the hands of Jesus, there is no telling what He can do with us and through us.

Hard to see this as denying the divinity of Christ, but just the opposite, by attributing to Jesus powers that belong to God alone.

For a Protestant, he also had a peculiarly Catholic view in the argument about faith and works (from his Gospel of Matthew, pt 1):

There are thousands of people who listen to the teaching of Jesus Christ every Sunday, and who have a very good knowledge of what Jesus taught, and yet who make little or no deliberate attempt to put it into practice…We must hear and do.

And this, from his book on Mark:

The essential Christian truth [is] that respectability is not enough. Respectability, on the whole, consists of not doing things. Christianity consists in doing things.

He even has nice things to say about the Catholic Church (Mark):

Heresy arises from divorcing oneself from the Christian fellowship. When a man thinks alone he runs a grave danger of thinking astray…It is the Roman Catholic principle that a man cannot have God for his father unless he has the Church for his mother—and there is truth there.

I would sincerely suggest that before you condemn the man (which again a great number of Catholic scholars would not do) you consider what he actually wrote, not what someone said about him, and what he wrote in its context, not statements taken out of context. You surely know that taking statements out of context is a favorite ploy of those extremist Catholics who attack all the recent Popes as being heretics themselves. That puts William Barclay in prestigious company, apparently.

 

[Qwikness]

It is quite revealing that the OP didn’t question the validity of what they read until they learned more about Barclay’s religion and background. Also, that the OP said “the commentary is very good and I have not found anything crazy yet”. Perhaps that is an indication that it is worth reading and perhaps why you find it on parish, college and seminary bookshelves.

If you are well grounded in your knowledge of the faith and understanding of Catholic teachings, William Barclay’s commentaries should not be a problem.

Revealing eh? Yeah, I’d say so since I explicitly said “the commentary is very good,” but the problem isn’t with what I read. It is what I might come across. What If I was to read something and believed it and trusted it and it was unorthodox? I am doing this on my own with no teacher supervision. I want to read Catholic understanding of Romans. Not Church of Scotland’s.

 

[Viola_Incognita]

Why did you ask this question in the Non-Catholic Religions forum?

May Christ’s peace be with you.

 

[chaunceygardner]

Revealing eh? Yeah, I’d say so since I explicitly said “the commentary is very good,” but the problem isn’t with what I read. It is what I might come across. What If I was to read something and believed it and trusted it and it was unorthodox? I am doing this on my own with no teacher supervision. I want to read Catholic understanding of Romans. Not Church of Scotland’s.

First, why do think that William Barclay’s understanding of Romans would be that much different than a Catholic understanding? Second, I could provide you with several DIFFERENT Catholic points of view about passages of Romans, so which one is truly “Catholic”? Third, why do you think that William Barclay’s views are exactly the same as the Church of Scotland’s views? Are you familiar with the doctrines and teachings of the Church of Scotland? Fourth, why did you ask the question if you are adverse to discussing it and possibly learning something?

Again, I find it fascinating that someone can view a commentary as “very good” until they find out who wrote it, and then worry that something they haven’t yet read might be untrustworthy. Just a heads up here: There have been books by Catholic authors that have received the Imprimatur and the *Nihil Obstat *yet were later condemned by the Vatican; often many years or even decades later. And some that were condemned that later were “rehabilitated” without one word being changed. So you may not want to read anything that self-identifies as “Catholic” until you give it 10 years or so to know that it is “safe”.

My suggestion is that you use your grounding in the faith and your ability to check out anything that you suspect of being un-orthodox. Use the brain and the intellect God gave you, rather than depend on someone else to think for you.

Peace.

 

[Antionach]

I have a William Barcley Bible Commentary at home. I got it as a birthday present from my former Baptist pastor.
William Barclay is very liberal, IMO. As far as I know he’s Presbyterian or Reformed?
However, it is definitely NOT a Catholic thing to read.

 

[chaunceygardner]

I have a William Barcley Bible Commentary at home. I got it as a birthday present from my former Baptist pastor.
William Barclay is very liberal, IMO. As far as I know he’s Presbyterian or Reformed?
However, it is definitely NOT a Catholic thing to read.

Then why do so many Catholics read him, including bible scholars and commentators? Why has he been considered a valid source of bible scholarship by so many for so long?

Is interpretation of bible passages and books constrained by official Catholic teaching? I am not aware of much official teaching that pertains to the meaning of specific passages. And just another “heads up” here; if you think that what Barclay discusses may not be acceptable, then you may not find the commentary in the New American Bible very palatable either; and that IS official Catholic teaching.