Is It Just Me Or...

[M.SIGGA]

Historical criticism, form criticism, etc. is a mess. I have a number of Bible's and biblical commentaries and they all disagree substantially in a lot of ways. I tend to judge the worth of a commentary based on the "camp" the authors of it belong to.

Who is the main editor of the commentary you have? If I know of him/her maybe I can give you my feedback on their school of hermeneutics and their presuppositions.

Their are different versions of the NAB with different commentaries. (yes, the NAB itself has 'evolved' over the years). The most common in the states is probably the "Catholic Study Bible" by Oxford University Press. It's a disappointment in my mind. They publish a "Jewish Study Bible" which I think is vastly superior.

what do you think about the St. Joseph NAB?

[Laudate_Dominum]

And I'll second cmom. One of the best Catholic commentaries for lay people is the Navarre commentary. If your doing exigesis or apologetics I would recommend the Bible commentary that Ignatius Press is in the process of publishing. It's put together primarily by Dr. Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch. So far they have published the four Gospels, Acts and Romans.

One of my personal favorites for meditating on Scripture is the "An Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture" series by InterVarsity Press. It is a comprehensive biblical commentary compiled entirely from the Fathers of the Church.

If your trying to do professional biblical scholarship you're going to have to use many commentaries and get tangled up in the current scholarly milieu. I don't recommend this for lay folks, as I said before, it's a mess.

[Laudate_Dominum]

what do you think about the St. Joseph NAB?

I've given away or misplaced my copy of that version. But I have used it. If I remember correctly the commentary is minimal. Actually there are different editions of the St. Joseph NAB, a personal study edition, a student edition, etc..

I don't remember which precise edition I had but the commentary was minimal anyway. It was also very one sided. I would say at the very least to take the commentary with a grain of salt. Often times they will present textual and historical opinions about passages which only reflect their own bias and are in fact not solid opinions. For example the dating given for certain books as well as elements of the historical development of the text will be biased. Keep in mind that there are those in biblical scholarship who differ dramatically from many of the views expressed. So basically I wouldn't consider it an authoritative commentary by any means.

[Aloysius]

i got a random question, we know the original texts are all infallible and inspired by God..

does Trent's approval make the Latin Vulgate infallible? it seems to me it does, so we should all just get Douay Rheims and be done with it! :P

[Laudate_Dominum]

i got a random question, we know the original texts are all infallible and inspired by God..

does Trent's approval make the Latin Vulgate infallible? it seems to me it does, so we should all just get Douay Rheims and be done with it!

Many traditionalist argue along those lines. They say that the authority of the Church instituted the latin vulgate as the one, authoritative edition of the Bible.

I wish this was true, but unfortunately I do not think it is.

The Church has always been into Biblical scholarship and has encouraged studying the ancient manuscripts and has not condemned the making of new translations. In fact it has approved other translations and even uses a different translation in it's Liturgy.