The New Jerome Biblical Commentary

[Nathan]

Any thoughts on the tome [i]The New Jerome Biblical Commentary[/i] (Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer & Roland Edmund Murphy, Eds.)?

This impressive-looking volume keeps catching my eye in the second-hand bookstores, and I've almost purchased it on several occasions; however, I suspect that it is less than orthodox to say the least (I'm already wary of Brown), which is why I haven't picked it up.

So, yay or nay?

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='Nathan' date='Sep 29 2005, 02:09 PM']Any thoughts on the tome [i]The New Jerome Biblical Commentary[/i] (Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer & Roland Edmund Murphy, Eds.)?

This impressive-looking volume keeps catching my eye in the second-hand bookstores, and I've almost purchased it on several occasions; however, I suspect that it is less than orthodox to say the least (I'm already wary of Brown), which is why I haven't picked it up.

So, yay or nay?
[right][snapback]741182[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
if u can get it for cheap, u might as well. i mean, its a nice reference to have on your bookshelf. whats dangerous is how scholars like Brown implicitly deny so many things. its easy to just skim right over it if ur not careful. plus, i don't like how unnecessarily vague the commentary can be (perhaps to appeal to a protestant audience.) i mean, what happeend to being in-your-face Catholic? Scripture is an in-your-face Catholic book. john 6 is always a disappointment when i read it, and apparently that book is brown's "specialty." all in all i guess its nice to have tho. i'd say just about every person who makes a habit of delving into scripture has a copy.

[shortnun]

It is indeed a great reference for any bookshelf. Make sure you get the latest edition (1990, I think). Many accredited colleges and universites use it in their scripture courses (including mine!).

In terms of the book's reputation (and those of the editors), there are those in agreement with the book, and those in disagreement. From what I've learned, it's a scholarly book in Catholic and non-Catholic circles (which perhaps speaks to the universality of the scriptures and how all people can come to God through them).

I consider it to be an assest to the formal and the informal scholar. And seeing as all believers are called to be theologians, it only seems appropriate to have this book.

I say, go for it and watch God's voice truly come alive in your heart through the scriptures.

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='shortnun' date='Oct 1 2005, 06:33 PM']From what I've learned, it's a scholarly book in Catholic and non-Catholic circles (which perhaps speaks to the universality of the scriptures and how all people can come to God through them).[right][snapback]743249[/snapback][/right][/quote]
....or it could speak to the lack of an unabashedly Catholic identity in his commentary

[shortnun]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Oct 1 2005, 11:36 PM']....or it could speak to the lack of an unabashedly Catholic identity in his commentary
[right][snapback]743364[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I prefer to think of the truth of the Catholic church as just that, as the [i]universal[/i] truth.

Edited October 2, 2005 by shortnun

[Nathan]

[quote name='shortnun' date='Oct 1 2005, 06:33 PM']In terms of the book's reputation (and those of the editors), there are those in agreement with the book, and those in disagreement. From what I've learned, it's a scholarly book in Catholic and non-Catholic circles (which perhaps speaks to the universality of the scriptures and how all people can come to God through them).

I consider it to be an assest to the formal and the informal scholar. And seeing as all believers are called to be theologians, it only seems appropriate to have this book.[right][snapback]743249[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

There are good theological books and bad theological books; theology that can deepen ones understanding of their faith, and theology that can corrupt it. One needs to be careful which books one looks to for education -- is it in keeping with the teachings of the Church, the Magisterium? If it is not, I simply do not have time for it.

[azaelia]

[quote name='shortnun' date='Oct 2 2005, 01:45 PM']I prefer to think of the truth of the Catholic church as just that, as the [i]universal[/i] truth.
[right][snapback]743742[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

That doesn't mean that we tiptoe around it. Truth is Truth. If we believe the Catholic church has the Truth, then we don't water it down so it appeals to everyone.

[shortnun]

Yes this book, thanks to the editing done in light of Vatican II and recent scientific advancements (which the church deems necessary to our study of the Bible), this book is in fact faithful to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. But just because the Church says something is true or false shouldn't be enough. There has to be sound theological reasoning behind such teachings. This book helps with a better understanding of the scriptures and what the Church teaches about them.

If you're looking for a book with the history of what the Catholic Church has taught about Scripture (as opposed to the exegetical focus of the New Jerome Biblical Commentary) may I recommend [u]The Scripture Documents: An Anthology of Official Catholic Teachings[/u] by Dean P. Bechard. It covers documents produced from the Council of Trent, Vat I and Vat II (as well as every major scriptural papal encyclical and curial document in between).

And, as an aside, it can be truly beneficial to learn (either through print or conversation) about opinions we think are opposite of ours. How else can we proclaim our beliefs to others and become come to an even better understanding of our own beliefs?

[Nathan]

Shortnun wrote:

[i]But just because the Church says something is true or false shouldn't be enough. There has to be sound theological reasoning behind such teachings.[/i]

Yes. The Church does not make decisions and declare whether things are true or false without sound theological reasoning. Ever. To better understand those reasons, we look to good, orthodox theologians -- and avoid problematic, heterodox ones (who often disgree with the Church's teachings, and, as such, disagree with the Truth and encourage others to do the same).[/i]

[i]If you're looking for a book with the history of what the Catholic Church has taught about Scripture (as opposed to the exegetical focus of the New Jerome Biblical Commentary) may I recommend [u]The Scripture Documents: An Anthology of Official Catholic Teachings[/u] by Dean P. Bechard. It covers documents produced from the Council of Trent, Vat I and Vat II (as well as every major scriptural papal encyclical and curial document in between).[/i]

Hey, thanks for the recommendation! That sounds amazing; I shall check it out.

[i]And, as an aside, it can be truly beneficial to learn (either through print or conversation) about opinions we think are opposite of ours.[/i]

Sure. Everything's educational. But, in studying these beliefs, we must be careful not to forget what the Truth is.

Edited October 2, 2005 by Nathan

[popestpiusx]

I own two editions of the commentary and I must say that it is a load of carp. Like phatcatholic said, if you find one cheap go ahead but be very very careful.

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='shortnun' date='Oct 2 2005, 04:05 PM']Yes this book, thanks to the editing done in light of Vatican II and recent scientific advancements (which the church deems necessary to our study of the Bible), this book is in fact faithful to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. [right][snapback]743860[/snapback][/right][/quote]
i can reproduce the unfaithful teachings in it, if you like

[cmotherofpirl]

If you are going to spend your hard-earned money why waste it on Raymond Brown?
Try something containing absolute Catholic teaching.
Mr Brown's books do not qualify for that.

[Nathan]

I know. But every once in awhile, Brown's prestige in the Church suckers me into almost picking up his stuff. Wasn't Brown head of the Pontifical Biblical Commission or something?

[nacnewman006]

[quote name='Nathan' date='Oct 4 2005, 01:45 PM']I know. But every once in awhile, Brown's prestige in the Church suckers me into almost picking up his stuff. Wasn't Brown head of the Pontifical Biblical Commission or something?
[right][snapback]745558[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Why not give him a miss entirely and go to Ignatius press' [u]Catholic Study Bible[/u]? try this link [url="http://www.getfed.com/product_detail.cfm?ID=5165"]http://www.getfed.com/product_detail.cfm?ID=5165[/url] or look it up on www.scotthahn.com
The problem with a lot of Raymond Brown's stuff is the historical critical method he uses. This method can often be taken for 'the Gospel truth' (bad pun), instead of the method and theory that it is. The Ignatius press commentary, however, is very sound teaching and very good. Yes, we should be open to ideas; however, we should not believe in things that refute beliefs we have held for milennia.

Peace y'all!

[shortnun]

[quote name='nacnewman006' date='Oct 4 2005, 11:42 AM']
The problem with a lot of Raymond Brown's stuff is the historical critical method he uses. This method can often be taken for 'the Gospel truth' (bad pun), instead of the method and theory that it is. The Ignatius press commentary, however, is very sound teaching and very good. Yes, we should be open to ideas; however, we should not believe in things that refute beliefs we have held for milennia.

[right][snapback]745766[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


What sort of method of interpretation is used in [u]Catholic Study Bible[/u]? Historical critical methods have been supported by the Church since knowledge of them first became widespread(see Pius XII's [i]Divino Afflante Spiritu[/i]). Also, seeing as I'm using the book for more than one of the graduate level courses I'm currently enrolled it (see previous posts under this topic), do you have any examples of beliefs that Brown, et al refute in the [u]NJBC[/u]? I do believe that there are numerous beliefs and traditions that the Church has changed views on throughout our 2000 year history.

[Nathan]

[quote name='nacnewman006' date='Oct 4 2005, 10:42 AM']Why not give him a miss entirely and go to Ignatius press' [u]Catholic Study Bible[/u]?[right][snapback]745766[/snapback][/right][/quote]

I'm knee-deep in it already: I've got all four Gospel volumes, and I've also been reading the Pauline Letter volumes. They're invaluable.

Even better, in my view, is the [i]Navarre Bible[/i] study series. The commentaries are beyond orthodox.

Edited October 4, 2005 by Nathan

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Oct 3 2005, 06:30 AM']i can reproduce the unfaithful teachings in it, if you like
[right][snapback]744253[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

now this thread has me upset since I have been using this commentary (and don't like the Navarre commentary). But I'm open to being convinced it is trash if you can prove it.

[phatcatholic]

give me some time, i'm knee-deep in other stuff right now. until then, check out the articles found here:
[url="http://www.phatmass.com/directory/index.php/cat_id/698"]http://www.phatmass.com/directory/index.php/cat_id/698[/url]

if the article isn't specifically about Brown, then its about his methods. should be educational

[Theoketos]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Oct 4 2005, 04:01 PM']now this thread has me upset since I have been using this commentary (and don't like the Navarre commentary). But I'm open to being convinced it is trash if you can prove it.
[right][snapback]746036[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Adam,

You should email my current Abbot, you sits on the Pontifical Biblical Commission.

In one foul swoop, the commentary takes the head off of each Gospel writter. Really many of thier conculsions are premises for unbelief.

[nacnewman006]

[quote name='shortnun' date='Oct 4 2005, 09:04 PM']What sort of method of interpretation is used in [u]Catholic Study Bible[/u]? Historical critical methods have been supported by the Church since knowledge of them first became widespread(see Pius XII's [i]Divino Afflante Spiritu[/i]). Also, seeing as I'm using the book for more than one of the graduate level courses I'm currently enrolled it (see previous posts under this topic), do you have any examples of beliefs that Brown, et al refute in the [u]NJBC[/u]?  I do believe that there are numerous beliefs and traditions that the Church has changed views on throughout our 2000 year history.
[right][snapback]745883[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I found this good quote on the ewtn site: "The Church approves of the use of this method for the purpose of understanding the historical and literary foundations of the text (see Vatican II, Dei Verbum 11-13), but finds it an incomplete method apart from the Tradition. Scripture must be interpreted according to the analogy of faith, that is, in accordance with what God has revealed in toto, as taught by the Magisterium." from [url="http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/bible_versions.htm"]http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/bible_versions.htm[/url]

Does this answer your question? I am not against hist.-crit., but I definitely think that it should not be the only way to interpret the Bible. It is a good method for what it needs to do, but I have read too many extreme positions to like it much anymore (yes, that is a bias I have toward it). Peace!