Looking at this sample page, the morphological and syntactic commentary seems to be on the Latin Vulgate rather than the original Greek text? It looks like this is very much oriented toward people who see Catholic and Latin sources as primary authorities? Or am I inferring too much from this sample page?MaxPC wrote:Yet one of the reasons I bought the very expensive Navarre Bible in the multi-volume set is the fact that it's an all-inclusive morphological and syntactic approach & commentary which does an exhaustive correlation between the Bible, our Catechism, documents of Church Fathers, and offers the Latin as well as the RSV-CE to make it easier to cross reference with Douay Rheims and critical documents that haven't been translated from Latin yet. Even with the multiple volumes, it still takes up less space on the shelves than having the references in dedicated tomes. It's not a Bible for casual reading but is a go-to for more exhaustive scholarship.
I think different translations have their own best audiences.
Navarre Bible
Navarre Bible
This study Bible has been mentioned in a couple of different threads, I thought it might be helpful to give it its own thread so we can discuss it in one place.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
-
- Posts: 1482
- Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 9:00 pm
- Affiliation: church of Christ
Re: Navarre Bible
Well, if it weren't Catholic I doubt it'd go near Latin, so I'm sure it's catered for them
0 x
Ponder anew what the Almighty can do
Re: Navarre Bible
Yes, it seems to be.KingdomBuilder wrote:Well, if it weren't Catholic I doubt it'd go near Latin, so I'm sure it's catered for them
I think the answer is simply that this commentary is designed for Catholics. And the Vulgate is a translation they used for a very long time. They created a lot of resources for it and a lot of their discussion of the Bible used that translation for many centuries. It's their King James Version.Josh wrote:Why is it important to cross reference with catechisms, documents that are only in Latin etc.?
Why is a foundation other than the Bible needed? The Bible wasn't written in Latin, so I see no need to be concerned with what a Latin translation of the Bible said.
I was interested when I saw that this includes morphology and syntax because I am looking at various approaches that commentaries use to present morphology and syntax for a project that I'm working on. But this seems to be the morphology and syntax of a Latin translation, not the original Greek. But I can only see limited information on the Internet, it's possible that they explore Greek on other pages that aren't visible to me.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
Re: Navarre Bible
About 4 years ago we went to the Catholic church around Christmas with my father-in-law who was alone at that time as we were helping and encouraging him. The priest said the Lord's prayer and then he added at the end, "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." Which most of the Catholic's looked surprised since this is not in the Douay-Rheims version. He then humbly went on to explain they have been studying the original Greek while comparing it to the Latin and that is where they found some sentences like this that they realize belong. He seemed excited about this.Bootstrap wrote:Yes, it seems to be.KingdomBuilder wrote:Well, if it weren't Catholic I doubt it'd go near Latin, so I'm sure it's catered for them
I think the answer is simply that this commentary is designed for Catholics. And the Vulgate is a translation they used for a very long time. They created a lot of resources for it and a lot of their discussion of the Bible used that translation for many centuries. It's their King James Version.Josh wrote:Why is it important to cross reference with catechisms, documents that are only in Latin etc.?
Why is a foundation other than the Bible needed? The Bible wasn't written in Latin, so I see no need to be concerned with what a Latin translation of the Bible said.
I was interested when I saw that this includes morphology and syntax because I am looking at various approaches that commentaries use to present morphology and syntax for a project that I'm working on. But this seems to be the morphology and syntax of a Latin translation, not the original Greek. But I can only see limited information on the Internet, it's possible that they explore Greek on other pages that aren't visible to me.
Since Catholic's came up I thought I could share this here without intent of causing ruffled feathers but a chance to commend something I have seen, maybe my experience doesn't fit with others but none the less: One thing I greatly appreciate about almost every Catholic I know is that they don't ever seem to have time or care to bother with talking down the way any other Christian's do things.
0 x
- Josh
- Posts: 23827
- Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:23 pm
- Location: 1000' ASL
- Affiliation: The church of God
Re: Navarre Bible
The consensus is that this was added rather late by a copyist. Translations like NET don't include it. When I pray the Lord's Prayer, I leave this off depending on my mood."For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen."
0 x
-
- Posts: 9044
- Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2016 9:09 pm
- Location: Former full time RVers
- Affiliation: PlainRomanCatholic
- Contact:
Re: Navarre Bible
Spot on, Wade. We have both Greek and Latin base document references for the Bible. However most of the non-Biblical references were written in Latin from the beginning since Jerusalem and other territories were part of the Roman Empire and most business was conducted in Latin - it was and is a universal language that is used throughout the globe in the Cathoilc Church so that translation misunderstandings are minimized among the dioceses regardless of the diocesan native language. That's why the Navarre was conceived: to create a better cross referencing between the various Catholic archives, Catechism and the Bible. It's was created for deep academic/scholarly work.Wade wrote:
About 4 years ago we went to the Catholic church around Christmas with my father-in-law who was alone at that time as we were helping and encouraging him. The priest said the Lord's prayer and then he added at the end, "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." Which most of the Catholic's looked surprised since this is not in the Douay-Rheims version. He then humbly went on to explain they have been studying the original Greek while comparing it to the Latin and that is where they found some sentences like this that they realize belong. He seemed excited about this.
Since Catholic's came up I thought I could share this here without intent of causing ruffled feathers but a chance to commend something I have seen, maybe my experience doesn't fit with others but none the less:
For those who do daily Bible reading for personal edification and growth, the Navarre is not as helpful unless a person has that kind of theological and philosophical training.
Thank you. I'd like to think so. At present though there's plenty of debating going on among Catholics. We're too busy debating ourselves.Wade wrote:One thing I greatly appreciate about almost every Catholic I know is that they don't ever seem to have time or care to bother with talking down the way any other Christian's do things.
0 x
Max (Plain Catholic)
Mt 24:35
Proverbs 18:2 A fool does not delight in understanding but only in revealing his own mind.
1 Corinthians 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is folly with God
Mt 24:35
Proverbs 18:2 A fool does not delight in understanding but only in revealing his own mind.
1 Corinthians 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is folly with God
- Josh
- Posts: 23827
- Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:23 pm
- Location: 1000' ASL
- Affiliation: The church of God
Re: Navarre Bible
There are no Latin base references for the Bible anymore than there are German or English ones. All Latin documents came later. I don't know how Latin is any more relevant to the present day Christian than Xhosa.
0 x
Re: Navarre Bible
MaxPC wrote:Thank you. I'd like to think so. At present though there's plenty of debating going on among Catholics. We're too busy debating ourselves.Wade wrote:One thing I greatly appreciate about almost every Catholic I know is that they don't ever seem to have time or care to bother with talking down the way any other Christian's do things.
There are several people here who have that kind of training.MaxPC wrote:For those who do daily Bible reading for personal edification and growth, the Navarre is not as helpful unless a person has that kind of theological and philosophical training.
Max, I would really love it if you would avoid talking down other Christians, but I think you do when you say things like this:
I agree that the goal is to build up and not tear down. The kind of statement you make in the above paragraph is tearing down. True Christian faith is not about my status or yours, it does not need to tear other people down to build up, it is reasonable and open to discussion, and it calls people to love.MaxPC wrote:Indeed, it is. Another thing that deters new believers is the petty nitpicking that goes on between those who consider themselves scholars. These individuals imagine scholarship is more importan t than the daily living of discipleship. Scholarly snobbery is more widespread than it should be and helps no one. It only serves to puff up egos rather than enlighten and encourage a person in his walk with Christ.
I opened this thread because the other thread was really about using simple biblical language, not scholarly references. You were the person who brought up morphology and syntax, you responded with the above paragraph in another thread when I started this thread. I absolutely agree that discipleship is the goal of Christian scholarship. But you seem to want to impress us with claims of scholarship, then avoid actually discussing things the way that a scholar does.I would be happy to discuss the Navarre Bible with you in this thread, and I'd be interested in your answers. I'm not looking for a fight, I spend a lot of time and effort on morphology and syntax for Greek, this is something that interests me.
I'm also very interested in the daily living of discipleship, and I agree that this is the true goal of any biblical scholarship. So perhaps both of us should work hard to make sure that is obvious in our interactions here. Because on MN, the way we interact with each other is one clear measure of how we live out our discipleship. I'm pretty sure I need to improve on my part of this dance. I suspect you do too.
In general, you seem to have adopted the habit of making vague accusations aimed at me, then avoiding further discussion. That just stinks. It does not point to a life of daily discipleship. It pollutes the atmosphere here. Please stop.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?