( 1 reviews )
-
( 2 of 4 found this review helpful ) Posted: Jan 26 2007
I am a religious studies student, and as such I am familiar with the historical-critical method of Scriptural interpretation. I attend a secular university, and this is the accepted method of interpretation among non-Christian Biblical scholarship. I also acknowledge that this approach has its uses, and is especially useful in a reading of Scripture as a historical document. As a Catholic, however, I believe that Scripture is the inspired Word of God. It should be interpreted in the light of Apostolic Tradition and the Magesterial teachings of the Church, especially in a Bible study, where a devotional reading of the Scriptures is taking place. When I purchased this commentary, I read the introduction, and was appalled to read that the commentators are of the belief that Christians have had it all wrong for two millennia. There is no Christ in Isaiah, they say. Take Isaiah 53 for example. The traditional reading of the Suffering Servant is applied to Jesus. The commentators, however, subscribe to a 12th century rabbinical Jewish interpretation that the Servant is in fact Israel. Don't get me wrong--as a Biblical scholar I love Rashi--his commentaries on the Torah are magnificent. But even he himself acknowledges that he must interpret Isaiah 53 to refer to Israel, because Christians interpret it to refer to the Messiah. This interpretation is fine for a JPS commentary on the Nevi'im, but not for a Christian one, much less for one that claims to be Catholic. If you are looking for a commentary that is faithful to Church teaching, you should consider instead the Navarre Bible commentaries.
