What justifies the apparent excessive price of this resource, I'm willing to be set straight. Navarre Bible:New Testament.
It’s a small commentary? The older one no Bible included.
It’s a small commentary?
1,200 pgs. Does it offer insight over other commentaries? What is it's appeal? It appears to get wide support from its reviewers. Perhaps, one of the Frs can chime in here.
The appeal of the resource is the resources it quotes. See sample above. However, St Josemaría Escrivá and Navarre University are somewhat contraversial so it needs to be read with a bit more caution than something more simple like the Collegeville Commentary.
Actually it's the one-volume edition of https://www.logos.com/product/20449/navarre-bible-new-testament-standard-edition which puts this into perspective.
The appeal of the resource is the resources it quotes.
Useful indeed. Thanks, MJ for the sample. I appreciate its terse authoritative message. I will put this on my wishlist and watch for a deal.
Thanks, Mick it is certainly a savings from its older progenitor.
However, St Josemaría Escrivá and Navarre University are somewhat contraversial so it needs to be read with a bit more caution than something more simple like the Collegeville Commentary.
Wow be careful with recommending Collegeville Commentary in a Roman Catholic setting. It takes major licenses with interpretations, trying to shoehorn scripture into a different agenda/interpretation.
For example, read Romans 1:18-32. In that passage of the Bible Paul states that because pagans worshiped creatures rather than the Creator, "God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error" (Rom 1:26-27).
The Collegeville Bible Commentary states "'natural' and 'unnatural' should be more accurately translated 'culturally approved' and 'culturally disapproved.'":
Thus Paul’s remarks about “unnatural relations” (vv. 26 and 27) should be understood in the context of his concern for order, for wholeness, and for bodily integrity, which is supposed to mirror the order and integrity of society and the cosmos, viewed, of course, from a Jewish perspective. Hence “natural” and “unnatural” should be more accurately translated “culturally approved” and “culturally disapproved.”
Dianne Bergant and Robert J. Karris, The Collegeville Bible Commentary: Based on the New American Bible with Revised New Testament (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1989), 1082.
This is linguistic nonsense. The Greek word here for "natural" is the adjective physikēn, from which we get "physics." The term means "according to [a thing's] nature." It has nothing to do with society's approval or disapproval, you will not find that anywhere in any respected lexicon like BDAG, BAGD, or others (I have checked). In fact the phrase for "unnatural" was found in the Stoic philosophers before Paul's time and clearly indicated something that was out of accord with nature, not society. (Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 9:265).
So while I am sure there are people who WANT this scripture to mean what Collegeville says, to ignore even a passing note about what the words actually MEAN is terribly misleading. There are other examples like this too, they are easy to find -- think of those Catholic teachings which are most in conflict with the world today, and there is a good chance you'll find an agenda-based interpretation, not one based on solid, objective scholarship.
This is why Collegeville is a commentary to be very wary of if someone's belief system is that being taught by the Catholic Church. It may be fine for other Christian denominations whose belief system is more aligned, however.
Don, I've no doubt Collegeville, and Jerome for that matter, have dissonances with the Catholic church. But even the great apostle Paul literally argues with you, in his use of 'natural'. I suspect each culture guesses at his meaning.
However, St Josemaría Escrivá and Navarre University are somewhat contraversial so it needs to be read with a bit more caution than something more simple like the Collegeville Commentary. Wow be careful with recommending Collegeville Commentary in a Roman Catholic setting. It takes major licenses with interpretations, trying to shoehorn scripture into a different agenda/interpretation. For example, read Romans 1:18-32. In that passage of the Bible Paul states that because pagans worshiped creatures rather than the Creator, "God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error" (Rom 1:26-27). The Collegeville Bible Commentary states "'natural' and 'unnatural' should be more accurately translated 'culturally approved' and 'culturally disapproved.'": Thus Paul’s remarks about “unnatural relations” (vv. 26 and 27) should be understood in the context of his concern for order, for wholeness, and for bodily integrity, which is supposed to mirror the order and integrity of society and the cosmos, viewed, of course, from a Jewish perspective. Hence “natural” and “unnatural” should be more accurately translated “culturally approved” and “culturally disapproved.” Dianne Bergant and Robert J. Karris, The Collegeville Bible Commentary: Based on the New American Bible with Revised New Testament (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1989), 1082. This is linguistic nonsense. The Greek word here for "natural" is the adjective physikēn, from which we get "physics." The term means "according to [a thing's] nature." It has nothing to do with society's approval or disapproval, you will not find that anywhere in any respected lexicon like BDAG, BAGD, or others (I have checked). In fact the phrase for "unnatural" was found in the Stoic philosophers before Paul's time and clearly indicated something that was out of accord with nature, not society. (Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 9:265). So while I am sure there are people who WANT this scripture to mean what Collegeville says, to ignore even a passing note about what the words actually MEAN is terribly misleading. There are other examples like this too, they are easy to find -- think of those Catholic teachings which are most in conflict with the world today, and there is a good chance you'll find an agenda-based interpretation, not one based on solid, objective scholarship. This is why Collegeville is a commentary to be very wary of if someone's belief system is that being taught by the Catholic Church. It may be fine for other Christian denominations whose belief system is more aligned, however.
Thanks Don - Your concerns are indeed well founded and thank you for highlighting the difference. I've been long concerned about how some interpreters misuse text - especially Romans 1 in these last days. I appreciated reading your comments and you're definitely right in saying there are those who want the interpretation that Collegeville sets out. One of the real advantages of Logos and a good Faithlife library is to identify these sorts of problem and satisfy yourself as to the truth. I'm obviously one of the many conservative Christians out there who would not find the Collegeville position very appealing! Keep well Paul
I'm obviously one of the many conservative Christians
FYI Priests usually identify my theology as so conservative as to be positively medieval; laity often mistake me for liberal, a mistake the priests chuckle at with recognition as to why both assessments are accurate. Think medieval vs. counter-reformation.
I'm obviously one of the many conservative Christians FYI Priests usually identify my theology as so conservative as to be positively medieval; laity often mistake me for liberal, a mistake the priests chuckle at with recognition as to why both assessments are accurate. Think medieval vs. counter-reformation.
I can certainly relate to what you say MJ in my own journey. We are rarely accurate about how we interpret ourselves let alone those around us. Yet most people have something to teach us and I think that's always a blessing. Keep well Paul
Well we must be careful about how we project onto the Bible our own biases. Paul‘s use of unnatural in Romans may seem clear to readers but historically what is moderenly refefered to as Lesbianism was not a serious thought to ancient thought who often rather ignored women. I have seen it said with strong argument that dominant female behaviour over their husbands may well be what is referred to there.
Indeed it is liturgical sanctioned which is something not all catholic commentators have received.
nihil obstat:Robert C. Harren, J.C.L. Censor Deputatusimprimatur:✠ Jerome Hanus, O.S.B Bishop of St. Cloud October 19, 1988
-dan
Just to carefully maintain my nutty theological image ( and not speaking to Dan's point), I do agree with Don's point. But not the basis for it. 'Nature' was at the heart of Paul's gentile argument, and by necessity, couldn't be limited to corporal issues. One would have to look at the local context.
I did not necessarily express myself well in the above post as often happens. I was not intending to give support to the idea just that historically how a passage is viewed is sometimes wiped away by modern assumptions and while the Collegville Bible commentary may have some different ideas, they are sound enough to received the nihil obstat and imprimatur mean there is nothing doctrinally objectionable in the book although doesn't necessary come down to an actual endorsement of all ideas and positions held within.
If you don't need a digital edition go with the hardcover copy from the on-line retailer. $20 USD less - used. $15 USD less new.
I only do digital these days. Nevertheless, I checked AMZN. The cheapest I found there was $58. Thanks, for your input though.
