Worst Biblical commentaries there are?

[patrick457]

People usually ask others what is the best something-something. I decided to break with the tradition and now ask everyone in this forum :

What, in your opinion, are the worst Biblical commentaries that exist today? And, why are these bad, from various points of view (spiritual, literary, historical, etc.)?

 

[Joe_5859]

The Complete Gospels.

It’s put out by a fellow from the Jesus Seminar. Need I say more?

 

[COPLAND_3]

I think any commentary that takes the Modernist approach and treats the Bible as if its full of forgeries and unhistorical stories. I can’t stand that! The further a commentary strays from the traditional approach the more I want to toss it in the garbage (which I have before)! My regrets is that I have given commentaries like that away thinking I was being nice, but I feel like all I did was give somebody poison.

I must say that I am not a fan of Origen’s commentaries. He was way too allegorical for my taste.

 

[BerhaneSelassie]

any thing produced by the Watchtower and Bible Tract society,

 

[patrick457]

The Complete Gospels.

It’s put out by a fellow from the Jesus Seminar. Need I say more?

Not to mention that they’ve even went out to great lengths to reconstruct the non-existent and hypothetical Q and the Signs Gospel, then went on to include them into a collection of writings that do exist. They’ve even made some introduction:

The Signs Gospel is a source for most of the narrative in the Gospel of John, and may well be the earliest written account of the deeds of Jesus. Q is a source for much of the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, and it witnesses to a very early stage of theological reflection in the Jesus tradition.

I have an interest in New Testament Apocrypha: orthodox or Gnostic, and really have no qualms against an ‘idiomatic’ English translation (though I’m more in the “translate it ultra-literally even if it comes out wooden and contrary to more loose traditional phraseology” camp), but yes, it’s hard to take anything from the Jesus Seminar as fact without a grain of salt.

 

[patrick457]

I think any commentary that takes the Modernist approach and treats the Bible as if its full of forgeries and unhistorical stories. I can’t stand that! The further a commentary strays from the traditional approach the more I want to toss it in the garbage (which I have before)! My regrets is that I have given commentaries like that away thinking I was being nice, but I feel like all I did was give somebody poison.

I feel for this. Aside from these, I also detest NT commentaries which treat one theory as though it’s gospel (pun intended) truth with no competitors: I mean, I’ve seen quite a number of them which confidently state that, say, “Matthew got this from Mark”, or “this saying is from Q” or other similar wording. I’ve never even realized that other scenarios which does not require accepting Markan priority or hypothetical documents existed until I’ve found it in Wikipedia of all places.

Now, does anyone have specific titles to critique?

 

[Fidelis]

I feel for this. Aside from these, I also detest NT commentaries which treat one theory as though it’s gospel (pun intended) truth with no competitors: I mean, I’ve seen quite a number of them which confidently state that, say, “Matthew got this from Mark”, or “this saying is from Q” or other similar wording.

It’s even worse when you hear it taught in a classroom this way–it just sets my teeth on edge and tends to sour me on what else the presenter says, no matter how useful or interesting it may be. What’s so hard about qualifying a statement by prefacing the presentation of, for example, the Q theory with the fact that it is, indeed, just a theory–and a fairly recent one at that?

And while I’m on a rant, a similar source of annoyance is when someone in a classroom setting discusses, for example, an Old Testament reading (usually one of the prophets) which a lenghty preface about how “Oh, scholars tell us that (insert prophet’s name) didn’t really write such-and-such a passage or book, but it was written hundreds of years after the fact.”

Since this is impossible to prove, only *surmise *from textual evidence, why even bring it up or spend time on it? For the average person seeking to understand the text on a practical (not scholarly, pick-it-apart) level, it is not helpful at all. The faith of a lot of Catholics has been damaged in this way.

It is clear that Jesus, the apostles and all the early Christians did not approach the Scriptures from that perspective, but rather, took them at face value and in the light of established tradition as a jumping off point. It is their mindset and their faith we want to imitate, not some flash in the pan, johnny come lately, ivory tower modern scholar.

 

[COPLAND_3]

It’s even worse when you hear it taught in a classroom this way–it just sets my teeth on edge and tends to sour me on what else the presenter says, no matter how useful or interesting it may be. What’s so hard about qualifying a statement by prefacing the presentation of, for example, the Q theory with the fact that it is, indeed, just a theory–and a fairly recent one at that?

And while I’m on a rant, a similar source of annoyance is when someone in a classroom setting discusses, for example, an Old Testament reading (usually one of the prophets) which a lenghty preface about how “Oh, scholars tell us that (insert prophet’s name) didn’t really write such-and-such a passage or book, but it was written hundreds of years after the fact.”

Since this is impossible to prove, only *surmise *from textual evidence, why even bring it up or spend time on it? For the average person seeking to understand the text on a practical (not scholarly, pick-it-apart) level, it is not helpful at all. The faith of a lot of Catholics has been damaged in this way.

It is clear that Jesus, the apostles and all the early Christians did not approach the Scriptures from that perspective, but rather, took them at face value and in the light of established tradition as a jumping off point. It is their mindset and their faith we want to imitate, not some flash in the pan, johnny come lately, ivory tower modern scholar.

amen amen amen amen amen etc etc etc!!!

 

[Joe_5859]

Since this is impossible to prove, only *surmise *from textual evidence, why even bring it up or spend time on it? For the average person seeking to understand the text on a practical (not scholarly, pick-it-apart) level, it is not helpful at all. The faith of a lot of Catholics has been damaged in this way.

What’s even worse is the Catholic high school theology texts that do this. I’ve seen many that will begin the chapter on the Gospels with all the source criticism hypotheses (stated as fact, of course).

 

[Joe_5859]

To actually address the topic of the thread o), I’ve often heard not-too-favorable comments about the New Jerome Biblical Commentary from some Catholic contingencies. I haven’t looked through it enough to really tell you specifically what the problems are.

It’s written by Raymond Brown. He’s extremely well respected in certain circles, but then somewhat vilified in others. He does tend to go off in those problematic directions that go hand-in-hand with much of modern biblical scholarship (i.e., Brown often sees a discontinuity between what a biblical passage means and what the biblical author meant). I know that in other places, Brown has some problematic ideas, such as his views on what the New Testament says (or does not say) about the ministerial priesthood.

I would assume these sorts of elements are also present in that commentary to some degree, but I can’t say for certain as it’s been a while since I’ve thumbed through it. I wouldn’t necessarily chuck the whole commentary, but it’s definitely not recommended for the undiscerning eye.

 

[patg]

I think any commentary that takes the Modernist approach and treats the Bible as if its full of forgeries and unhistorical stories. I can’t stand that! The further a commentary strays from the traditional approach the more I want to toss it in the garbage (which I have before)! My regrets is that I have given commentaries like that away thinking I was being nice, but I feel like all I did was give somebody poison.
.

If I may reuse your template:

I think any commentary that ignores the Modernist approach and treats the Bible as if it is full of literal history. I can’t stand that! The further a commentary strays from the studying the literary forms and using historical-critical anlysis approach the more I want to toss it in the garbage (which I have before)! My regret is that I have given commentaries like that away thinking I was being nice, but I feel like all I did was give somebody a source for misunderstanding.

 

[Fidelis]

If I may reuse your template:

I think any commentary that ignores the Modernist approach and treats the Bible as if it is full of literal history. I can’t stand that! The further a commentary strays from the studying the literary forms and using historical-critical anlysis approach the more I want to toss it in the garbage (which I have before)! My regret is that I have given commentaries like that away thinking I was being nice, but I feel like all I did was give somebody a source for misunderstanding.

If you find a Catholic Bible commentary like this, let me know.That’s something I’d like to see!

 

[Rick09]

The Complete Gospels.

It’s put out by a fellow from the Jesus Seminar. Need I say more?

:sad_yes:

Horrid stuff. I’ve heard stories of “Catholic” colleges presenting this evil bunk to students. Unbelievable.

 

[patrick457]

What’s even worse is the Catholic high school theology texts that do this. I’ve seen many that will begin the chapter on the Gospels with all the source criticism hypotheses (stated as fact, of course).

I’d rather have them give a more detailed background on the Synoptic Problem, taking the arguments both for and against its existence, then present the proposed solutions without favoring one over the other (and here I’m thinking that this is the age when everyone’s opinions are respected…). Though, I’m rather uncertain as to whether it would be wise to begin a theology textbook with this. Wouldn’t a more sketch of the history of the New Testament through Church history be a better substitute?

Yes, it’s sad that Biblical studies in some circles within our Church is plagued with these problems. Going a bit in Bible footnotes, I’ve found some non-Catholic ones which put the NAB footnotes to shame. The NAB, for example, only has the brief footnote for Genesis 2:4b-25:

This section is chiefly concerned with the creation of man. It is much older than the narrative of Genesis 1:1-2:4a. Here God is depicted as creating man before the rest of his creatures, which are made for man’s sake.

IMO, the wording here just resigns itself to expressing the support for the JEPD hypothesis, delved into more detail in the preface for the Pentateuch. But the New English Translation (2005) gives more fuller information:

Advocates of the so-called documentary hypothesis of pentateuchal authorship argue that the introduction of the name Yahweh (Lord) here indicates that a new source (designated J), a parallel account of creation, begins here. In this scheme Gen 1:1-2:3 is understood as the priestly source (designated P) of creation. Critics of this approach often respond that the names, rather than indicating separate sources, were chosen to reflect the subject matter (see U. Cassuto, The Documentary Hypothesis). Gen 1:1–2:3 is the grand prologue of the book, showing the sovereign God creating by decree. The narrative beginning in 2:4 is the account of what this God invested in his creation. Since it deals with the close, personal involvement of the covenant God, the narrative uses the covenantal name Yahweh (Lord) in combination with the name God. For a recent discussion of the documentary hypothesis from a theologically conservative perspective, see D. A. Garrett, Rethinking Genesis. For an attempt by source critics to demonstrate the legitimacy of the source critical method on the basis of ancient Near Eastern parallels, see J. H. Tigay, ed., Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism. For reaction to the source critical method by literary critics, see I. M. Kikawada and A. Quinn, Before Abraham Was; R. Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 131-54; and Adele Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative, 111-34.

I’ll admit however that I’m biased towards the NET, footnote-wise. It’s got one of the decent footnotes I’ve seen in a modern Bible translation - it gives variant readings while listing the manuscripts which has the variant, presents more literal or alternate renderings (the translation itself leans a bit toward the dynamic equivalence side), and some background information. Here’s to hoping someone does an updated, boosted up version of the Haydock footnotes - reflecting recent discoveries and studies but still retaining its orthodox character.

Just a final comparison - John 19:17:

NAB: Carrying the cross himself: a different picture from that of the synoptics, especially Luke 23:26 where Simon of Cyrene is made to carry the cross, walking behind Jesus. In John’s theology, Jesus remained in complete control and master of his destiny (cf John 10:18).

NET: As was customary practice in a Roman crucifixion, the prisoner was made to carry his own cross. In all probability this was only the crossbeam, called in Latin the patibulum, since the upright beam usually remained in the ground at the place of execution. According to Matt 27:32 and Mark 15:21, the soldiers forced Simon to take the cross; Luke 23:26 states that the cross was placed on Simon so that it might be carried behind Jesus. A reasonable explanation of all this is that Jesus started out carrying the cross until he was no longer able to do so, at which point Simon was forced to take over.