Ignatius Catholic Study Bible - Old and New Testament.
Fall 2024. One of the most important bible releases that will ever occur is finally happening.
https://catholic-study-bible.com/
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
>Jesuits
>2.7k pages
So this is 90% annotations? Lol.
It is a Study Bible, anon. It is supposed to have tons of annotations
No shit, moron.
That’s what a study Bible is.
what a dull fellow you must be
Oh great, a new study bible for the IQfy-brand Christians to bandwagon and buy just to never read it... What are you, women? Actually, the women who participate in 'bible studies' at least read their devotionals.
Who touched you, homosexual?
Any more biblically-literate anons able to give me a rundown on the differences between RSV/CE and RSV2/CE AND NRSV/CE?
RSV is my favorite translation but I don't know much about its various "updates."
wikipedia
rsv2ce
>The Second Catholic Edition removed archaic pronouns (thee, thou) and accompanying verb forms (didst, speaketh), revised passages used in the lectionary according to the Vatican document Liturgiam authenticam and elevated some passages out of RSV footnotes when they favored Catholic renderings. For instance, the RSV-2CE renders "almah" as "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14, restores the term "begotten" in John 1:18 and other verses, uses the phrase "full of grace" instead of "favored one" in Luke 1:28, and substitutes "mercy" for "steadfast love" (translated from the Hebrew hesed) throughout the Psalms.[12]
rsvce
>The RSV Catholic Edition included revisions up through 1962, a small number of new revisions to the New Testament, mostly to return to familiar phrases, and changes to a few footnotes. It contains the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament placed in the traditional order of the Vulgate.
nrsv
newer revised manuscripts, gender neutral language
St. Jerome's Vulgate is the best text of the Bible.
Jerome had manuscripts that we never had - there is 0 reason to prefer other traditions over his, except prejudice. Rejecting him is a form of modernism. Also, last time I checked, Latin, not Hebrew/Greek, is the language of the Church. When he said Moses had horns, that was a literal translation of the true, lost Hebrew text, which was speaking metaphorically.
Do you realize Vulgate manuscripts have gone through the same process other manuscripts have gone through too?
Hopefully it will rival the ESV Study Bible, it has mogged every study bible I've read hard
Catholics do have some good Study Bibles. If you have the space in your bookshelf and money, Navarra is amazing. Some anons consider the Didache great.
The New Testament of the Ignatius Bible is great and is not very expensive
What about the, Little Rock Catholic Study Bible?
Imagine choosing to be catholic
Pretty easy to imagine because I already am Catholic.
Christians need to learn to stop cramming so much shit into a single binding.
You would still be reading from loose scrolls if not for those Christians.
How good is this edition?
It was my first introduction to "serious" bible study
If you want to know the compositional history of the bible according to a narrow school of anglophone scholars, it should be right up your alley
Otherwise, it seems incomprehensible
I can appreciate it a little more now that I can seriously interact with its argument but it still seems like it does nothing to help
I've become more opposed to study Bibles and would propose an alternative approach depending on what you want to achieve through Bible study
>what you want to achieve
As in, studying the book as a scholar vs. studying the book as a Christian? How would your recommendations go for either case?
>As in, studying the book as a scholar vs. studying the book as a Christian?
Yes but not entirely
If you approach the text as a Christian, do you want to find deeper meaning in the text or do you want a scholarly understanding from a Christian perspective?
If the former, I'd not limit myself to scholars tbh. I recently read Marilynne Robinson's book on Genesis and it's the best thing I've read on Genesis for a long time lmao
>How would your recommendations go for either case?
>scholar
I'd read Raymond Brown's Introduction to the New Testament
It was written in 1997 and is still more or less relevant. "Discussion" has "moved on" but besides acquainting yourself with some new vocabulary for narratological approaches which have become much more extreme
Actually, all of Raymond Brown's stuff is excellent, I especially liked his book on the nativity narratives. He is an exemplar of cool headed thinking in scholarship
If you want something more recent, Luke Timothy Johnson is his indirect brainchild though his views are more his "own" though this would help you get used to the fact that consensus is in very short supply with biblical studies
OT scholarship is very chaotic these days and I acquired what I know about it very piecemeal.
Reading the OT by John Barton (Barton is Anglican OT Brown, which means he is much more annoying than he needs to be but his actual scholarship is great) is still great and a great intro to how critical biblical studies are usually done, as are the collections of essays he is in the habit of editing. I haven't really read very many OT intros but John Collins is as good as you'll get
>Christian
For a Christian, I'd need something more specific but if you want reqs for secondary lit on anything biblical, I'll try to check the thread until it dies
For purely autistic reasons the book of Job is my main interest, but I don't know what to even ask since I'm such a neophyte who's barely touched the New Testament.
You're not doing yourself any favours
The book of Job has enjoyed uniquely bad interpretations in scholarship to my mind
Read Chesterton's introduction or something, it's the best essay ever written on the book
If you want something more up to speed with criticism but whose interpretation is not as grand as Chesterton, read Duane Garrett's new commentary
It is decisively Conservative and treats the text as integrated but it's probably the best treatment linguistically and the interpretation is fairly sensible compared to what scholars usually say about it (though still lesser to Chesterton's view imo)
Isn't it for Atheists who want to join Bible Academia?
It's very easy to read
The notes help you understand what the book is talking about and helps you not get lost in the text
I've only read the Old Testament though
t. non-Christian non-israelite so no biases
Btw one thing that bothers me is that it doesn't mention the protoevangelium
I feel like that's important for understanding the Christian view of the Bible yet it doesn't mention it
haydock or frick off
Do I really need a Study Bible? I already own the Douay-Rheims and RSV-2CE
Depends on what you mean by "need". Some extraordinary people became saints without even having read the Bible, much less a Study Bible. So, strictly speaking, it is not necessary.
That said, it is nice and helpful to have a good Study Bible and the Ignatius is a good study Bible.
Wow didn’t thought it’ll be that hard to even decide for the right bible.
There are many different translations. Some are more literal, some are more poetic. Protestant Bibles don't include all books that Catholic Bibles do.
Then there are the Study Bibles.
Some teach Catholic/Orthodox thought in the notes (they are more or less compatible). There are the Protestant ones.
And there are the Academic ones, which follow Biblical Academia.
"Wouldn't the Academical the most unbiased and reliable one?"
No. They are biased from an Atheistic point of view. For example: "This book is dated after the Destruction of the Temple, since Jesus prophesized the Temple would be destroyed and prophecies are not real".
Also, their theories don't have any kind of external evidence. For example, they more or less accept something called a "Q" Gospel. No one ever mentioned anything similar to a "Q" Gospel until 19th century Germany. No one ever found a manuscript of it. But its existence is a mainstream faith in Biblical Academia.
Do you know the Shakespeare authorship theories? It is the same thing, except Shakespeare is closer to us in time and those who lived in his era are closer in memory.
You seem experienced. I search a bible with lots of historical context. Do study bibles include theories like that Eve listened to a snake was a metaphor for shamanism?
i have only ever heard jordan peterson talk about that and he bases it on his Jungian/evolutionary psychology ideas. i don't think biblical scholars take that stuff seriously since it's all 20th century interpolations of ancient texts
I read about that in A Brief History of Humankind. NOT from Jordan Peterson. I can open the book and search for references.
Guys, can I finish the Bible within 30 days? I have an RSV with me and I'm at Deuteronomy rn.
Why would you Speedrun it?
I just want to get it over with, I'm not religious but I do know the Bible is very significant.
I guess you could if you did nothing but read for 30 days but, I don't think you'd get much out of it.
The Haydock Douay-Rheims already exists. This is unnecessary.
Someone explain Roman Catholicism to me. What is the deal with papists?
>The papacy admitted that the Donation of Constantine was a forgery so the main political justification for papal primacy is bullshit
>The pope excommunicated the eastern Patriarchs for believing in the Nicene creed as it was written over politically motivated Iberian fan-fiction, which is explicitly not heretical
>Despite being excommunicated, the papacy does not deny the validity of Orthodox sacraments, meaning you can be excommunicated by the pope and still successfully take communion
>Popes claim authority from being the heir to St Peter's office and therefor inherit his supposed ability to make declarations about dogma, but the very old and traditional form of Christianity that St Peter practiced has been faithfully maintained in Orthodoxy and altered by his "heirs" in Roman Catholicism, which means the successor popes believe in St Peter's authority to determine what Christianity is but don't believe in what he believed Christianity is
>Papal infallibility is given to whomever manages to claim the office of the Holy See, and this office has been occupied by rampant, unrepentant sinners and atheists multiple times, with drunken orgies and bloodsports recorded as being hosted in the Vatican itself, which means there is no mechanism in place to verify whoever has infallible authority over doctrine even believes in said doctrine
>Rampant idolatry with worship being performed with extremely detailed yet necessarily inaccurate statues of Christ, Mary, etc. redirecting the worshipful and reverent spirit from the living soul of these people to the dead inanimate figure before them and whatever hostile spirits are able to use this misdirection as an attack vector
>Denial or ignorance of the holy mysteries, instead prioritizing ruthless scholastic deconstruction that has paved the way for the """enlightenment""" and secular atheism in the west
etc. Why are you Roman Catholic?