Customer Reviews

The Collegeville Bible Commentary: Based on the New American Bible : Old Testament

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

I have been taking Little Rock Scripture Study for almost 7 years. The Study has always used the Collegeville Series. The Commentators are varied, intelligent, thoughtful, erudite, and often witty in their exegeses on Scripture. The major point of the Little Rock Study Guides is to encourage the student to read, think, and pray for guidance for a correct interpretation. The reviewer from Feb 2003 apparently had already established a subjective viewpoint and read the Collegeville Commentary to fit his own agenda. Perhaps he should re-read it with a Catholic perspective.

Very well explained. We use this commentary during our bible study and it is very helpful to understand difficult parts of the Bible. And it contains all the books of the Catholic Bible.

Although the book was used, it is in excellent condition. I will hesitate to buy new again. Standard delivery was faster than estimated. Overall,I am very pleased with experience.The Collegeville Bible Commentary: Based on the New American Bible : Old Testament

I not only purchased this volumn but also the New Testament version. I was picked to lead our men's bible study group in the book of Ezekiel. I think it is the biggest book in the bible, approx 48 chapters. I needed something easy to be able to to the men into the chapters we were reading and purchased this book. I find it easy to understan and it has made my life and my job of leading a group of 20 men at 6 AM much easier that I thought it woudl be. I recomend it to anyone delveing into the Old Testament. I purchased both versions used and was very happy with the books I recieved.

The Collegeville Biblical Commentary, like the seminary that sadly produced it, is steeped in modernism and rejection of traditional Catholic Doctrine. This bible is a paragon of modernist exegesis - much of which is actually not so "modern" anymore, most of the "research" coming from the peak of the increasingly false and discredited historical-critical method from mid 20th century (many of the 'explanations' put forth in this study have already been disproven by later evidence and biblical thought, which is tending in many circles back towards the more traditional interpretations of Sacred Scripture.)

In my opinion, this Bible commentary is simply too modernist, meaning it bends and even breaks interpretations Sacred Scripture in order to appeal to modern sensibilities, in areas ranging from homosexuality to marriage to constant efforts to 'disprove' the early history of the Jews.

You're far, far better off with a Navarre study Bible, but for a truly great and orthodox Catholic Study Bible get the Haydock - Douay Rheims Bible - Large Print.

I would not recommend the Collegeville Bible Commentary for any Catholic desiring accurate information. It is characterized by one-sided, liberal Bible scholarship and lack of fidelity to the Church's teachings. In one area it has a pro-homosexual agenda.

For instance in one area, the commentary on 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).

But the author, states "'natural' and 'unnatural' should be more accurately translated 'culturally approved' and 'culturally disapproved.'" In other words, if homosexual behavior is culturally approved, which it is to the homosexual community, then it would not be a sin, rather it would be culturally approved. This is bunk!

This is linguistic nonsense and does not deserve a response but, the Greek word for "natural" is the adjectival form of phusis, from which we get "physics." The term means "according to [a thing's] nature." It has absolutely nothing to do with society's approval or disapproval. In fact the phrase for "unnatural" (para phusin) was found in the Stoic philosophers well before Paul's time and clearly indicated something that was out of accord with nature, i.e., Sickness which is the teaching of the Catholic Church. (cf. Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 9, p. 265).

The fact that the Collegeville Bible Commentary would go so far as to say that the terms "should be more accurately translated" as "culturally approved" and "culturally disapproved" shows the lengths to which the author(s) and those approving the author(s) of the commentary are willing to go to push their social agenda of homosexual acts. (In the case cited the commentary gives what I consider to be a pro-homosexualist interpretation.) This is not in my opinion scholarship, but the antithesis of it, where a scholar's personal social or political views are allowed to dominate the data which is what the homosexual community has been attempting to force on society for a decade. Seems now they have the blessing of an Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur to confuse the faithful
! What a shame!

I am quite sure other areas are just as suspect and if this one instance was permitted, no telling how much more is permitted. I threw my copy in the trash can! I am sorry I wasted my money.