New Testament
http://www.amazon.com/Ignatius-Catholic-Study-Bible-Testament/dp/1586172506/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1294018100&sr=8-1
Genesis
http://www.amazon.com/Ignatius-Catholic-Study-Bible-Genesis/dp/1586174339/ref=pd_sim_b_3
Sunday, January 2, 2011
Ignatius Study Bible: A Must for Catholics
New Testament
http://www.amazon.com/Ignatius-Catholic-Study-Bible-Testament/dp/1586172506/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1294018100&sr=8-1
Genesis
http://www.amazon.com/Ignatius-Catholic-Study-Bible-Genesis/dp/1586174339/ref=pd_sim_b_3
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Yes, I purchased this book recently. It is a wonderful resource. I especially like the three keys that are used throughout the commentary. They help to show 1) the continuity between the OT and NT 2) how it is tied to the Church's teachings and 3) related to the analogy of faith. While the footnotes in the NAB and the old Jerusalem Bible helped the notes in this edition really take further.
God bless to you all for this site. Stan
I've never used it or even reviewed it. How does it compare with Jerome Study Bible?
Just to be certain you are referencing The New Jerome Biblical Commentary NJBC by Brown, Fitzmyer, et al. If so I would consider them to be complementary goods and not substitutes for each other. The NJBC contains both commentary on both the OT and NT whereas the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible ICSB covers the NT only. I like the ICSB since I am reading the Sacred Word and can easily have at my fingertips more detailed notes than typically found in a Bible footnote along with similar Scripture passages that are related. However, the NJBC is a commentary and as such provides more detailed explanations. For this weeks Gospel reading on the Baptism of Our Lord the ICSB provided more explanation on the term "righteousness" but the NJBC discusses the embarrassment the early Church had with Jesus being baptized. Pondering both of these topics is fascinating. Probably for the average faithful the ICSB will provide a resource they will use more often due to its structure of having the Word and the notes together (plus more affordable). But if one wished to learn more about the Sacred Scriptures than having a copy of the NJBC I think would be a requirement for more exegesis work. I hope this helps. God bless.
Stan S, I would be much more cautious regarding the New Jerome Biblical Commentary -- there are parts of that which are barely Catholic (indeed, barely Christian).
The NJBC is a good example of modern "scholars" mostly ignoring the Tradition and instead interpreting the Bible according to the parallel "tradition" they have set up since 1800. I am not entirely anti-historical critical method, I think it can be helpful at times; but I don't see how the NJBC can justify its own name (invoking St. Jerome), when it gives such little place to the Fathers and theologians of the past (Jerome, of course, was very traditionally minded; he was a rigid and dogmatic conservative in his own day, much more so that Augustine for example).
An example of why I am nervous about the NJBC: There is nothing in any of the Fathers that I have read, nor anything in the commentaries of the great theologians of the tradition, nor anything in the writing of the saints (as far as I have found) which says that the early Church felt "embarrassment" about the fact that Jesus was baptized...
Surely, John the Baptist was uncomfortable. But why does this mean that John the Evangelist was embarrassed?
[Don't think I am some naive conservative, I have read hundreds of pages of the NJBC and I know the arguments they make on many of these points (I am familiar with the argument they make about the particular point you raise). I have read several books by Raymond Brown and one or two by Fitzmyer as well; moreover, I used to read some of the 'scholars' of the Old Quest (I have read Schweitzer's classic tome). I too had a period when I looked to that trash ... but eventually I saw the intellectual pride of these men (and women). Then I began to read the Tradition they had so lightly dismissed, and I have not turned back. It is worth noting that even Raymond Brown, at the end of his life, began to doubt the value of all the work he had done; he started looking more to the Narrative Analysis you see in works like Sacra Pagina.]
Stan, please don't take this as an attack. It is only a word of caution.
Dear Reginaldus, no offense taken, all points you made are to our benefit to be very careful in what we read about Sacred Scripture. Yes, Fr. Brown and other Catholic scholars did get caught up in the historical-critical-method HCM, strayed from the path and need to be read with a cautious eye. Yes, the whole study to find the "real Jesus" versus the "Jesus of faith" was and is quite disturbing.
I was reading the "embarrassment" of Jesus' baptism two ways: 1) like stated in the Scripture "you come to me?" this I think at first blush causes many (John in his day and faithful in the pews today) to wonder why does the second person of the Trinity need to be baptized? He has no sin. That is why I also read Pope Benedict XVI's "Jesus of Nazareth" about this passage. The Holy Father does mention "Is that something Jesus could do?" p16 and then proceeds to unpack this question. 2) I did not read this in the negative but again how true and accurate the Sacred Scriptures are about Our Lord. I see the evangelists leaving in points that actually could make believing hard, ie, being put to death on a cross, which as I understand it was only for the lowest criminal and a humiliating death, not something I think you would write to convince people that this was God the Savior. Same with how Peter is not always portrayed in a glowing light (anger, ran away, etc) but still received the keys to the Church.
I agree that reading the Patristic Fathers is a great thing to do but sometimes it is not always easy to get one's hands on a good translation or necessarily the time to read through to capture the crux of a pericope. If you can help with this I would be most appreciative.
Books that I do use are:
"You Can Understand the Bible" by Peter Kreeft
"Inside the Bible" by Fr. Kenneth Baker
"God and His Image" by Fr. Dominique Barthelemy
"Paths and Sites of the Early Church from Messiah Galilee to Jerusalem" by Fr. Bargil Pixner
Thank you for taking the time to enlightened me about the use of the NJBC. I know that you and the other writers are only trying to help us understand our faith and keep focused (really liked Campion's earlier blog post that if you are reading blogs more than Scripture, Saints or the Fathers probably not the best).
May God's peace be with you always.
Stan, Thanks for receiving my comment in the same spirit of charity with which it was written!
Regarding some good patristic sources ... I would highly recommend the "Catena Aurea" of St. Thomas -- it is his compilation of many patristic commentaries into one concise commentary on the four Gospels.
For a more modern source -- there is the Navarre Bible.
Also, Cornelius a' Lapide (18th century) has a lot of biblical commentaries (but these are a bit more academic).
St. Thomas has his own commentaries on several books of the Bible -- the best of these are on John, and on the Pauline Letters.
Probably the Catena Aurea and the Navarre bible (both New and Old Testament) would be more than sufficient for your studies.
The Navarre Bible is quite large (probably 20 or more volumes for both OT and NT) ... the NT commentary was released in one volume (expanded edition) for about $80.
see http://www.catholiccompany.com/navarre-bible-c466/
or http://www.scepterpublishers.org/category/?category_id=24&gclid=CMiUxpDgq6YCFQwCbAodl3r2mg
Happy studies, and blessings to you in Christ!
Sorry, what I actually have is called "The Jerome Biblical Commentary, from 1968, written by an SS (not sure what order that is), a Carmelite, and a Jesuit. I don't think it's the same as the "New Jerome Biblical Commentary."
Any input? If it's not a solid source, I'll get rid of it.
veneremurcernui,
The Jerome Biblical Commentary (1968) is not so bad as the New Jerome Biblical Commentary, but it still isn't a source in which I would put much trust.
I have read a good deal of the old Jerome Biblical Commentary, it has some useful information...with a great bit of error mixed it.
The main thing I would counsel (when it comes to any biblical commentary since the 18th century) is simply to say that we need to always give greatest authority to the commentatorial tradition of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church.
However, this does not mean we should completely exclude more recent insights.
Thus, I would recommend the Navarre Bible (it is a 10 volume set, both OT and NT; but there is also a condensed NT commentary in one volume, which would be most helpful as a handy reference for personal study).
I don't see any reason to throw out the JBC (or even the NJBC), just be sure to consult the tradition and don't give too much credence to the modern scholars -- and by "modern" I mean anyone after the 1400's, and especially those after the 1800's.
btw: An "SS" is an advanced scripture degree.
Blessings to you, and happy studies!
If you want a particularly insightful read -- get St. Augustine's Commentary on the Gospel of John (his homilies/tractates on John), it is probably the greatest work of theology after the Summa Theologica and (perhaps) the De Fide Orthodoxa.
Thank you, Fr. Reginaldus. I agree with you - I try to adhere to the Tradition of hte Church in everything, and look to the Fathers and great Saints for guidance, not modern authors. Even "orthodox" current day authors have been afflicted, to one degree or another, with much modernism. That is why I went with the Saints. And Douay Reims!
Wolf in Calfskin: The Rampant Liberalism of the NAB - a traditionalist critique of the NAB
http://www.pugiofidei.com/NAB.htm
http://www.pugiofidei.com/NAB2.htm
Post a Comment
If you want your comment to be published: Use a name or pseudonym, and keep it short (generally, less than 100 words), to the point, and civil.
All comments must be approved by a blog-administrator. If your comment is deleted, please don't take it personally.