A reader writes:
I have been thinking of getting the "Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture" Edited by Thomas C. Oden
I trust your feed back. This commentary as you know is about $560.00 and is published by a Protestant Press.
Is this Commentary worth the money? Do you know any of the down falls? Do you recommend any other Commentary set that focus on the Patristic writings on Scripture? I have the Navarre Bible set. I am looking for another Scripture Commentary set for my studying.
The Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture is a good series, and I can recommend it, though there are a few things one ought to know about it:
- It is based on the 39 volume Protestant set of early Church writings that is commonly available (including on the web for free). The advantage of the commentary set is that it has the material sorted by Scripture order, so it gathers together passages where the Church Fathers and other early writers are talking about a particular passage. This pre-sorted aspect of the set makes it much easier to find relevant passages on the book or passage you are studying, and it is the chief reason one would want to buy the series.
- The set has an older translation that is somewhat clunky in places, and it occasionally suffers from Protestant translator bias. These, however, are minor problems.
- More significant is the fact that the set is limited by the 39-volume translation it is based on. This set did not include translations of some writings that would help round-out the picture of the early Church Fathers’ views (e.g., Jerome’s Commentary on Galatians was not translated, though it is key to getting a balanced picture of early Christian interpretation of Romans and Galatians). On occasion, the editors of the 39-volume set appear to have deliberately excluded certain works because they were too Catholic. Still, this is a sin of omission in the work, and the set is still useful.
- The upshot is that the set is a good one and I can recommend it, but it requires that you use some critical thinking skills when you read and that you keep in mind that there can be (and sometimes are) important things that you are not seeing because of the limitations of the original translation.
For those who are interested in sampling the series, I should also note that it is available in individual volumes, as at this link. Buying an individual volume or two will let you get a sense of the series as a whole before you decide to punk down the money for the whole thing.
Afraid that at the moment I don’t have another patristic-oriented series to recommend. (I have heard of others, but haven’t had the chance to examine their volumes.) If you’re looking for a good general commentary, I can recommend Word Biblical Commentary. It is much more in-depth than the Navarre Bible. Though it is by a Protestant publisher, is the best commentary of its kind out there at present (and available in individual volumes at the link provided). Fr. Pacwa and I recommend it.
Regarding the recommendation of the Word Commentary, I’m curious. What makes it worthwhile? True, I suppose any commentary that actually believes in the veracity of Scripture is a step up from current biblical scholarship, but is that saying much?
Is it useful for just historical/cultural information and context, or do you think that it has doctrinally much worth? It seems to me kind of a contradiction to expect discerning insight into the sources of faith from commentators who don’t have the faith. Granted conservative Protestants and Catholics have some beliefs in common; is its utility limited to those passages, or is your approbation more sweeping?
Or is this a case of beggars can’t be choosers?
I’m reminded of Leo XIII’s warning in Providentissimus Deus (paragraph 15):
“But it is most unbecoming to pass by, in ignorance or contempt, the excellent work which Catholics have left in abundance, and to have recourse to the works of non-Catholics – and to seek in them, to the detriment of sound doctrine and often to the peril of faith, the explanation of passages on which Catholics long ago have successfully employed their talent and their labour. For although the studies of non-Catholics, used with prudence, may sometimes be of use to the Catholic student, he should, nevertheless, bear well in mind-as the Fathers also teach in numerous passages(41) – that the sense of Holy Scripture can nowhere be found incorrupt outside of the Church, and cannot be expected to be found in writers who, being without the true faith, only gnaw the bark of the Sacred Scripture, and never attain its pith.”
I am troubled today by the utter lack of useful Catholic biblical resources. Even the much-lauded RSV-CE is a warming over of modern Protestant version. Why so lauded? Presumably because it doesn’t have inclusive language, its more trustworthy than our suspicious New American Bible, and it’s in modern image. Is this the best we can expect?
Classic orthodox Catholic commenaries on Scripture remain locked away in their language of origin, inaccessible to Catholics of the English-speaking world, who must crib on whatever English works they can find, most of which either are either more superficial (viz. Navarre Bible), more Modernistic (viz. New Jerome Biblical Commentary), or more Protestant.
The same goes for English works on theology. As you seem pretty well read, you know as well as I, that there are works in Latin, French, German, etc., which blow away the reprints we subsist upon. Ludwig Ott? Ha! Try Sacra Theologiae Summa.
Bemoaning aside, it would be a very worthwhile cause to introduce our classical Catholic works to a modern audience. In his day, St. Augustine begged St. Jerome for translations for leading Greek commentaries on Scripture. Where is our St. Jermone? Alas.