Learn more Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Learn More Shop now Shop now Learn more Fire Tablet Shop Kindle Amazon Music Unlimited for Family Learn more Fitbit
Customer Review

17 of 18 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Excellent value!, 17 Aug. 2011
This review is from: Ignatius Catholic Study New Testament-RSV (Leather Bound)
Firstly, regarding price, this has to be superb value.It's leather bound, has a beautiful set of traditional illustrations picked out in gold on the cover, and has gold edges to the pages. Also, the ribbon markers are not to be sneezed at. The paper is very substantial (better for these purposes than traditional "Bible paper")and all in all it is quite a hefty tome.

Secondly, it's arguably the best "conservative" Bible commentary around. Scott Hahn avoids the extremes of fundamentalism (which requires a type of "double-think" to maintain) and the typical "modern" criticism which empties Christianity of all supernatural elements. Scott Hahn even has the honesty to admit that there is as much evidence for the Matthean Priority hypothesis as the Markan.

Thirdly, it uses the RSV translation, which is infinitely preferable to the ugly uninspiring Jerusalem version. It's a shame that God is adressed as "You" almost throughout, but this was inevitable given the present apalling state of the Liturgy.

All in all, an excellent buy...no Catholic home should be without this one.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

[Add comment]
Post a comment
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Amazon will display this name with all your submissions, including reviews and discussion posts. (Learn more)
Name:
Badge:
This badge will be assigned to you and will appear along with your name.
There was an error. Please try again.
Please see the full guidelines here.

Official Comment

As a representative of this product you can post one Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
The following name and badge will be shown with this comment:
 (edit name)
After clicking on the Post button you will be asked to create your public name, which will be shown with all your contributions.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.  Learn more
Otherwise, you can still post a regular comment on this review.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
 
System timed out

We were unable to verify whether you represent the product. Please try again later, or retry now. Otherwise you can post a regular comment.

Since you previously posted an Official Comment, this comment will appear in the comment section below. You also have the option to edit your Official Comment.   Learn more
The maximum number of Official Comments have been posted. This comment will appear in the comment section below.   Learn more
Prompts for sign-in
  [Cancel]

Comments

Track comments by e-mail
Tracked by 1 customer

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-1 of 1 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 25 Feb 2014, 02:19:12 GMT
amanuensis says:
I beg to differ with you and Hahn. There is not "as much evidence for the Matthean Priority as the Markan." If your idea of evidence is Eusebius' quote about Papias, then that isn't very good "evidence." Papias is 100 years after Christ and Eusebius, who is telling us what he heard/read is another century and more after Papias. Nowhere does the Church declare either man's statements as Spirit-inspired. When Origen (AD 210?) says, "The first is written according to Matthew" we don't know whether he means first to be written or first as it is found in the collection. The fact that no one quotes Matthew in his "original" Hebrew is also telling. Jerome's translation is based on the Greek Matthew. Hahn's statement that the Church doesn't demand that we have to believe in Marcan priority is a poor defense of Matthean priority IMHO.
Sometimes the easiest solution is the right one. But ultimately what matters is the inspired Word of God, not who wrote it or when.
Also, how does the translation of the second person singular pronoun "you" relate to the "apalling (sic) state of the Liturgy"? How else would you translate it into contemporary English? Remember, Jerome's Vulgate was intended to make the Word accessible so he used the everyday Latin. That's the task of contemporary translators as well. I'm sure people complained about his "modern" translation as well.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›

Review Details

Item

Reviewer


Location: GATESVILLE, TEXAS, US

Top Reviewer Ranking: 9,581,474