Navarre Bible:New Testament Bloated Price!

MJ. Smith said:

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 Awalt said:

MJ. Smith said:

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        

MJ. Smith said:

Paul said:

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    

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.

Beloved said:

What justifies the apparent excessive price of this resource, I'm willing to be set straight. Navarre Bible:New Testament.

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.