Several folks asked in the combox down yonder for some more info on what commentaries on the Scriptures that I like/recommend.
So here goes.
The Jewish commentary on Genesis that I mentioned is the volume on Genesis that is part of the Jewish Publications Society’s JPS Torah Commentary, edited by Nahum Sarna. The volumes I’ve read from the JPS Torah Commentary are good, and I really like the volume on Genesis, which Sarna also wrote.
These are expensive, so if you order one, make sure that Sarna’s name is attached to it. (The JPS also had an older Torah commentary which Sarna was not involved in. That’s not the one I’m talking about.)
I haven’t read enough of Sarna’s Understanding Genesis to comment on it, but his commentary on Genesis is top notch material.
Also good is Rashi’s commentary on Genesis. Rashi was the greatest Medieval Jewish Scripture commentator, but Rashi is very expensive and rather technical, so I’d only recommend him for someone who’s really wanting to do some intense work on Genesis.
A couple of folks asked what I think of the Navarre commentary series, and the answer is . . . It’s okay. It’s certainly theologically orthodox, but it is hampered for me by two things: (1) It’s hasn’t been available in a single, complete set and (2) it has a devotional angle rather than a scholarly angle.
This means that it’s not that suited for the kinds of uses I put commentaries to. I don’t really need a commentary that has footnotes with lots of devotional quotes from John Paul II and St. Josemaria Escriva (which the original volumes on the New Testament had). For anything that’s going to be a multi-volume set, I need something that’s going to survey the breadth of scholarly opinion and the arguments in favor of different positions.
The same consideration applies to the Ignatius Study Bible. It’s also hampered for me by not being available (yet) in a complete edition and not having the kind of technical orientation that I need, so I haven’t read enough of it to comment, really.
This points up something that is quite relevant here: I may not be the best person to recommend commentaries for most folks since most folks don’t put commentaries to the uses that my job requires me to.
When I want a quick take on a passage, I just go to Orchard, since that’s a decent 1-volume commentary that reflects traditional Catholic interpretations and which was written before Catholic biblical scholarship went hog wild for hypercritical speculations.
If I want more than a quick take, I go for much more detailed commentaries that many folks wouldn’t be interested in, so I don’t really spend a lot of time reading or using other non-technical commentaries (e.g., Navarre, Ignatius Study Bible).
One "lighter" set that I can recommend is IVP’s Bible Background Commentary, which is now available for both the Old and the New Testaments. This isn’t so much a commentary attempting to tell you what the text DOES mean but a resource for telling you the cultural and historical background that MIGHT help explain what the text says. It’s helpful and easy to read, though it has a singificant limitation in that it doesn’t footnote the background it provides. It leaves that for other, more detailed commentaries. Still, it’s very useful for what it attempts to do.
When it comes to those longer, technical commentaries, I tend not to buy complete sets (too expensive) but only the volumes for whatever book I’m studying at the moment. I do, however, have favorable impressions of certain sets.
For example, I’ve generally found the volumes of the Word Biblical Commentary to be quite good. (It’s also Protestant.) I know Fr. Mitch Pacwa also likes this series.
Certain volumes of the Sacra Pagina series are also good. (That’s a Catholic series, but this means that some volumes–since I haven’t read them all–may be heterodox.)
I’ll sometimes use the Expositor’s Bible Commentary (an Evangelical set) for the New Testament and the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament (a 19th century Protestant set).
I’d love to have some good Catholic commentary sets to recommend, but Catholics haven’t really been producing multi-volume commentaries of an in-depth nature (except Sacra Pagina) in recent years. They have been contributing individual volumes to some scholarly sets, but not whole, multi-volume commentaries by Catholic authors.
There are other commentaries I turn to as well, but these are of an even more technical nature and likely wouldn’t be of interest to any but a tiny number of people.
And then there’s the problems of heterodoxy and hypercriticalism.
The problem is that every commentary is going to have some flaws, multi-volume sets included. You can’t check your brain at the door when reading biblical commentary. You have to treat it as "idea starters" and figure out what you think the evidence best supports. That means that, regardless of whether the author you are reading is Catholic or non-Catholic, whether he is older or newer, you’re going to have to question and challenge what he says, because in the world of biblical commentary, heterodoxy, hypercriticalism, and plain ol’ ordinary being wrong are all over the place.
Unfortunatley, God has not given us an infallible, inspired Bible commentary. Instead, he is glorified by our efforts to use the reason that he gave us to wrestle with the text and try to figure out how to follow his thoughts behind him.
I’m really looking forward to Brazos Press’ ecumenical Theological Commentary on the Bible; many of the contributors are outstanding scholars, including Matthew Levering of Ave Maria University, Scott Hahn, and many, many others. The first volume (Acts) by Jaroslav Pelikan is out this month.
Jimmy,
Thanks very much for all of this information. I have seen/heard you answer this question about Bible commentary recommendations several times, both on your blog and on Catholic Answers Live. But I always wondered why you didn’t mention the Ignatius Study Bible, and what you thought of it. I’m glad to finally have your take on it.
You’re probably right that many of us don’t need commentaries with all of the technical precision that you look for, but on the other hand, I am looking for something with a bit more “meat” than the Navarre Bible series (though I agree that it is good for devotional reading). So I very much appreciate all of your recommendations!
Paul
I think that the IVP Bible Background Commentary might be quite mixed. In that series, Enns’ commentary on Exodus is great, but there was another one (Mark, I think) which I didn’t find so great.
Jimmy, have you read any of Bernard Orchard’s other books? Are they as reliable as his Commentary? Many of the titles sound very interesting. Thanks for posting on this!
Jimmy,
I’ve recently received brochures for a multi-volume (too expensive for me too) set of compiled commentaries by the Church Fathers, published by Intervarsity. They seem to have a number of Catholics on the editorial board for this. Sounds like a good idea if the translations are accurate. I’d be interested in your take on this one. Thanks!
Does anyone know of a place where biblical passages are defined by Popes? That’d be a start to an ‘authorized’ commentary and would be a cool idea for a web site!
For Catholics who want a solid orthodox commentary on the Gospels, there are a *lot* of resources out there, but most of them are out of print.
Here are some of the best English commentaries. Look for them in the libraries.
Maldonatus. Commentary on Matthew
Cornelius a Lapide, The Great Commentary (commentaries on the Gospels, Corinthians, Galatians)
Maas, AJ Commentary on Matthew (with an absolutely amazing amount of detail and erudition)
Callan and McHugh, Gospels and Acts with commentary
Commentary on the New Testament (from the Catholic Biblical Association, 1942, which has an excellent bibliography of English works), this is a commentary in a separate volume to accompany the Confraternity Version
There are lots of Commentaries of St. Thomas Aquinas on the New Testament available.
Aquinas. Commentary on John.
Aquinas Commentary on Galatians
Aquinas Commentary on Ephesians
Aquinas Commentary on Hebrews.
The best commentary on the Epistles of St. Paul is by Estius, a 17th century exegete. Unfortunately that’s only available in Latin.
Also, any traditional Life of Christ is in effect a commentary on the Gospels, and many of them are quite detailed, critical, and specific.
It is not true that biblical commentary has to be hypercritical or heterodox. It is true that Catholic biblical study today is in shambles. But this was not always the case. If you can get old books, you will find a treasure of orthodox, sound Catholic teaching. Certainly there is disagreement about texts, but disagreement among *orthodox* Catholics.
Also, you need to read Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical letter on the study of Holy Scripture, which is absolutely blockbuster.
Also, read the Syllabus of Modernist Errors by Pius X, which contains many condemned errors regarding scripture study, also the decisions of the Biblical Commission at the turn of the century, which are a good barameter for traditional Catholic exegetical thought. That will give you a good basis for distinguishing what is likely heterodox from the more reliable. Look at what prospective commenataries have to say about the authorship and historical value of sacred texts.
If you the Gospels aren’t attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John, for instance, you’re in Modernist terrority. Look at the dates the commentaries are attributing to the Gospels. If you see after 70AD for Matthew, put up a red flag.
Get the Companion to Scripture Study by Steinmuller, which has traditional Catholic positions on the authorship of the scriptures. This will give you some perspective from which to compare more “modern” writings.
It is true that you can gain info on select points from heterodox scripture commentators. But it’s also true that you’re forever going to be gnawing at the bark, so to speak, without obtaining the pith. Furthermore, if you believe Catholic Tradition is necessary for proper exegesis, and that the opinions of the Church Fathers is highly relevant, watch out for so called historico-critical commentaries. A good sign of old school Catholic exegesis is when the views of various Fathers are put foward about a text, as well as the exegetical analysis. A biblical commenary with no anchor in tradition is more suspect.
Hope that’s helpful.
“For Catholics who want a solid orthodox commentary on the Gospels, there are a *lot* of resources out there, but most of them are out of print.”
Sounds like works that call out to be put online, like what New Advent did for the Catholic Encyclopedia.
It should be noted that one can be “critical” – and can even profit from historical criticism – without being “hypercritical” or ignoring the Fathers and the Tradition, let alone “heterodox.”
Everyone interested in this topic should read Ratzinger’s In the Beginning. I think it’s a model of what exegetes/commentators/theologians should be shooting for.
Sounds like works that call out to be put online, like what New Advent did for the Catholic Encyclopedia.
Only those works published before 1923 can be absolutely certain of being in the public domain. All others would need to be researched.
NAVARRE BIBLE
Perhaps I am biased — well I do work for Scepter Publishers…(but well before that I used Navarre and certainly have a personal opinion on the matter) And I know Jimmy was not speaking unfavorablely regarding the Navarre ( it just did not fit what he would use it for in his work) There is much to be said regarding what it actually does accomplish.
While I agree with Jimmy that it is directed more to living the meaning of the Sacred Scriptures than to certain technical considerations (one needs both) –though it DOES make use of such information (ex:”This passage is absent from many ancient codexes…”.)–I think one needs to add that the riches of the Navarre lies particularly in it use of Magisterial documents — or instance Dei Verbum, Lumen Gentium — the Writings of the Popes, the writings of the Saints (example: St. Teresa of Jesus St. Escriva), the writings of the Church Fathers (ex: St. Augustine, St. Jerome, St. John Chrysostom) –(I think one could say too that it ‘takes Sacred Tradition as well into account’) as well as various information in regards to the background of the culture and of course insight into the meaning of the passage.
While it is certainly not the kind of technical work he was speaking about (but again they do make use of ‘technical’ work)–it does not offer only meditations — its riches are quite vast and they are aimed not only at understanding the text, but at reading them within the Church and putting what one reads into life as a disciple of Jesus Christ.
By the way — there is now the WHOLE BIBLE available — a ‘set’ of the NT and the OT. See at http://www.scepterpublishers.org