The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
Augoustinos, Poliscifi, The Cub, P H, Hardrada
5604 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
1 registered members (1 invisible), 66 guests, and 476 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
Church of the Holy Trinity (UGCC) - Brazil
Papal Audience 10 November 2017
Upgraded Russian icon corner
Russian Greek Catholic Global Congress
OL EuroEast II (2007) Group
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics34,747
Posts412,017
Members5,604
Most Online2,716
Jun 7th, 2012
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Re: New Jerome Biblical Commentary #130267 10/17/03 04:33 PM
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,502
Stephanos I Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,502
Brad
You may be inept at foreign languages but there are english - greek translations of the septuagint.
For me it is the final authority. Of course the vulgate has pride of usage in the Latin Church and is to be the text for dispute on all doctrinal issues.
Stephanos I

Re: New Jerome Biblical Commentary #130268 10/19/03 02:42 PM
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 49
I
IrishJohan Offline
Member
Offline
Member
I
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 49
I personally like the International Bible Commentary from The Liturgical Press. What do people here think of this one?


Pax Christi,
John
Re: New Jerome Biblical Commentary #130269 10/19/03 06:13 PM
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 89
BradM Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 89
Quote
Originally posted by J Thur:
I recommend the JPS Hebrew-English Tanakh: Pocket Edition (ISBN: 0827607660). Price being the major factor, of course. But if you have a difficult time reading small print you can always pay out more cash.

Joe
I have asked a question in the AHC (Assoc. of Hebrew Catholics) discussion forum but no one answered it. Joe would you help? What does the JPS Tanakh say about the author of Psalm 110?

This was my posted question:

I have a question on Psalm 110, (109 in the Douay-Rheims).

The RSV, NIV, NASB, NKJV, NAB, and the Confraternity Challoner-Rheims Version all say "A Psalm of David." The Confraternity Version says that it is recognized that David is the author of this Psalm.

FOOTNOTE FROM CONFRATERNITY-DOUAY BIBLE
109, 1: The force of our Lord's argument from this passage is as follows: David was universally recognized as the author of this psalm, which was acknowledged by all as referring to the Messias; but the psalmist addresses the Messias as his superior; therefore the Messias must be David's superior and not merely his "son" or descendant. Cf. Mt 22,41-45 and parallels.

The Douay-Rheims states it is "A Psalm For David."

MikeF on Jews for Judaism states (post 12826): << The Hebrew reads: L'Dovid mizmor, meaning "A Psalm for David," or as the Artscroll translation renders it., "Regarding David; a psalm."

"A Psalm by David" would be Mizmor l'Dovid.

The Artscroll commentary, based on Ibn Ezra and Radak, says, "An inspired, unnamed psalmist composed this psalm about his king, David." >>

Which is correct? Jesus states in Luke 20:41-44 "41 Then Jesus said to them, "How is it that they say the Christ is the Son of David? 42 David himself declares in the Book of Psalms: "'The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand 43 until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet." ' 44 David calls him 'Lord.' How then can he be his son?"". (see also Mt 22,41-45)

How do I reconcile this? Who is right? Why is the DRV saying the same thing as the Artscroll version while the Confraternity reverses the DRV? I'm confused.

Shalom HaMoshiach Yeshua,

BradM

Re: New Jerome Biblical Commentary #130270 10/19/03 07:53 PM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,904
Hesychios Offline
Orthodox Catholic Toddler
Member
Offline
Orthodox Catholic Toddler
Member
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,904
Quote
Originally posted by IrishJohan:
I personally like the International Bible Commentary from The Liturgical Press. What do people here think of this one?
My personal impression was that it would be outstanding, but at the time I considered it for purchase I was a little bit low on cash. So I can't say, but thanks for bringing it up, I may want to purchase one depending on whatever comments may bubble up here!

Michael

Re: New Jerome Biblical Commentary #130271 10/19/03 10:37 PM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,960
J
Joe T Offline
Member
Offline
Member
J
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,960
Brad,

Your questions seemed to be almost straightforward until you included the bit on Luke 20:41-44. This inclusion compounds your question since it also deals with the problem of inferiority (sonship-lordship).

But to answer you first question about the JPS Tanakh. The recent edition states:

110 Of David. A psalm. LDVD MZMVR

Joe

PS: cf. Luke 1:32.

Re: New Jerome Biblical Commentary #130272 10/20/03 01:16 AM
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 89
BradM Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 89
Quote
MikeF on Jews for Judaism states (post 12826): << The Hebrew reads: L'Dovid mizmor, meaning "A Psalm for David," or as the Artscroll translation renders it., "Regarding David; a psalm."

"A Psalm by David" would be Mizmor l'Dovid.

The Artscroll commentary, based on Ibn Ezra and Radak, says, "An inspired, unnamed psalmist composed this psalm about his king, David." >>
Quote
Originally posted by J Thur:
Brad,

Your questions seemed to be almost straightforward until you included the bit on Luke 20:41-44. This inclusion compounds your question since it also deals with the problem of inferiority (sonship-lordship).

But to answer you first question about the JPS Tanakh. The recent edition states:

&#8220;110 Of David. A psalm.&#8221; &#8230; &#8220;LDVD MZMVR&#8221;

Joe

PS: cf. Luke 1:32.
Joe, it seems the Artscroll and the JPS have the same Hebrew but the scholars translate it differently. the JPS "Of David. A Psalm" means to me that David is the author and this is what the New Testament places on the words of Jesus, that David was the author. So for some reason, the Artscroll scholars want to change the authorship from David to an "unnamed psalmist" to make it look like Jesus didn't know what He was talking about!

I just went and opened my Septuagint by Brenton and on page 767 is says of this psalm 109 (110) "A psalm of David."

Hmmm. Artscroll seems to be the favored translation of the Jews on Jews for Judaism, this must be one of the reasons.

- BradM

Re: New Jerome Biblical Commentary #130273 10/20/03 02:20 AM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,960
J
Joe T Offline
Member
Offline
Member
J
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,960
Translations are fun, aren't they? The issue of authorship is even more fun.

Now, what exactly do you think Luke meant by what he wrote?

Joe

Re: New Jerome Biblical Commentary #130274 10/20/03 04:41 AM
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 89
BradM Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 89
Quote
Originally posted by J Thur:
Translations are fun, aren't they? The issue of authorship is even more fun.

Now, what exactly do you think Luke meant by what he wrote?

Joe
You mean in this quote?

Quote
Jesus states in Luke 20:41-44 "41 Then Jesus said to them, "How is it that they say the Christ is the Son of David? 42 David himself declares in the Book of Psalms: "'The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand 43 until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet." ' 44 David calls him 'Lord.' How then can he be his son?"". (see also Mt 22,41-45)
Now the verse "Lord said to my Lord" this is actually "YHWH (Yahweh) says to my Lord (adonai)" correct?

And we can understand this as "YHWH (Yahweh, God the Father) says to my Lord (adonai, God the Son Jesus Christ)"

Since David is the author and he calls the Messiah "his Lord" that Jesus was telling the teachers of the law that the Messiah would be more than a "son of David" of the seed of David (only human), this is a reference to Jesus' divinity. That David when he was writing in the Spirit was leaving us a clue that the Messiah is his superior and Lord/Master, and the only way his son could be his Lord, Master, and superior is if the "Son of David" is also the "Son of God."

Did I miss anything?

- BradM

Re: New Jerome Biblical Commentary #130275 10/22/03 04:42 PM
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678
Logos - Alexis Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678
BradM,

I have the Haydock Old and New Testament. I bought the set about six months ago. It's absolutely incredible. EVERYTHING has Patristic commentary. If anything, it's overly specific. One little verse may have a half page (biiig pages) of 6 font commentary!

Logos Teen

Re: New Jerome Biblical Commentary #130276 10/22/03 08:22 PM
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 49
I
IrishJohan Offline
Member
Offline
Member
I
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 49
Quote
Originally posted by Teen Of The Incarnate Logos:
BradM,

I have the Haydock Old and New Testament. I bought the set about six months ago. It's absolutely incredible. EVERYTHING has Patristic commentary. If anything, it's overly specific. One little verse may have a half page (biiig pages) of 6 font commentary!
Really? I personally prefer the RSVCE, but this sounds like just what I was looking for. It is difficult to find resources for patristic commentary on specific verses, well at least more than just the most "popular" Fathers and also without having to wade through a lot of dross. Btw, is there an Orthodox equivalent to the Haydock Bible with patristic commentary? I'd be very interested in seeing it...


Pax Christi,
John
Re: New Jerome Biblical Commentary #130277 10/22/03 08:24 PM
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 49
I
IrishJohan Offline
Member
Offline
Member
I
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 49
Quote
Originally posted by Coalesco:
Quote
Originally posted by IrishJohan:
[b] I personally like the International Bible Commentary from The Liturgical Press. What do people here think of this one?
My personal impression was that it would be outstanding, but at the time I considered it for purchase I was a little bit low on cash. So I can't say, but thanks for bringing it up, I may want to purchase one depending on whatever comments may bubble up here![/b]
It is expensive, Michael, that's true. However, I like it because the commentary seeks to incorporate many opinions from a more orthodox view. The section on the Eucharist and the NT was instructive.


Pax Christi,
John
Re: New Jerome Biblical Commentary #130278 10/28/03 09:01 PM
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 89
BradM Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 89
I just bought me a used copy of the Jerome Biblical Commentary and I own the New Jerome Biblical Commentary.

After a quick perusal of the two they look quite similar.

Does anyone know the main differences between the two? (sorry I have no time right now to re-read this thread incase I am asking a question already answered, pardon me if that is the case.)

Thank you,

BradM

Page 2 of 2 1 2

Moderated by  Father Deacon Ed, theophan 

The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2019 (Forum 1998-2019). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.3