Rating: 
Summary: A very useful study Bible
Review: A person can only appreciate the Revised English Bible (REB) if they have some knowledge of its origin. The REB is a revision of the New English Bible (NEB), which was pioneered by the late C.H. Dodd. Before the NEB was published only two English translations were regarded as significant: the King James Version and the Revised Version (1881). The NEB was pioneering in that it was the first entirely fresh translation of the Bible based on the Greek and Hebrew texts since Tyndale. It was not merely a revision of a tradition of English Bibles. What made it arguably the century's greatest translation was the fact that it was done by the finest biblical scholars in Britain and at a time when a biblical scholar was someone who specialised in more than the first verse of John's Gospel. Dodd's razor mind is evidenced in his "Historical Tradition of the Fourth Gospel", a work of dazzling brilliance, which presupposes knowledge of at least ten languages. Although the NEB was pioneering, often its readings were too bold for general acceptance. The REB serves as a healthy corrective and as a balanced regression from the bold scholarship of Dodd's day. It keeps all that is best in the NEB and improves things too, by taking out the Thees and Thous and by adding a polished literary style present in no other modern English translation. The REB also irons out several inaccuracies in the NEB. In conclusion, the REB is utterly faithful, modern and beautiful. You will read several books before you realise it is time to stop. If you must choose only one translation, this is a noble choice.
This particular edition of the REB offers study notes and several other useful aids to biblical study. The notes are based on the previous Oxford Study Edition. Although this is not the most detailed Study Bible (the notes generally are kept to a minimum) the standard of scholarship is excellent. This is the only study Bible that uses the text of the REB. The font size is also eminently clear and readable.
Rating:
Summary: "Translation" issue is really "textual source" issue.
Review: A previous Amazon review by Michael K. Broadhead (see below) calls attention to an "oddity" in the REB's rendering of Jesus "anger" in Mark 1:41. Broadhead points out that KJV gives "compassion" and RSV gives "pity" for the same term. He could have added that the NEB -- the predecessor version to the REB -- gives "warm indignation". These words are indeed different. However, differences do not imply mistranslation, or that one of the translations has to be incorrect, or that the translators were careless. The REB rendering resulted from the translators' evaluation and selection of various textual and evidentiary sources, referred to as "witnesses." Tanslators have to assess and take into account divergent manuscrits in Greek, manuscripts of early translations into other lnaguages, and quotations from the New Testament by early Christian writers. Translators are highly conscious of the provisional basis of their judgements about the variants. I have read the NEB closely and comparatively. Setting aside the concept of accuracy, which is more elusive than we like to think and beyond the expertise of readers without training in ancient languages, beyond even that expertise of readers armed with lexicons, I have found the translation to be strong and convincing. I would especially recommend the REB or the NEB to readers who already know their KJV and RSV. The differences are more fascinating than "odd." The best thing about the REB is its full commitment to the English language and willingness to write as English is written, risky as that may be. So-called "accurate" translations that give give English word equivalents without sounding like acual English usage fail in the task of translation, from my point of view.
Rating:
Summary: "Translation" issue is really "textual source" issue.
Review: A previous Amazon review by Michael K. Broadhead (see below) calls attention to an "oddity" in the REB's rendering of Jesus "anger" in Mark 1:41. Broadhead points out that KJV gives "compassion" and RSV gives "pity" for the same term. He could have added that the NEB -- the predecessor version to the REB -- gives "warm indignation". These words are indeed different. However, differences do not imply mistranslation, or that one of the translations has to be incorrect, or that the translators were careless. The REB rendering resulted from the translators' evaluation and selection of various textual and evidentiary sources, referred to as "witnesses." Tanslators have to assess and take into account divergent manuscrits in Greek, manuscripts of early translations into other lnaguages, and quotations from the New Testament by early Christian writers. Translators are highly conscious of the provisional basis of their judgements about the variants. I have read the NEB closely and comparatively. Setting aside the concept of accuracy, which is more elusive than we like to think and beyond the expertise of readers without training in ancient languages, beyond even that expertise of readers armed with lexicons, I have found the translation to be strong and convincing. I would especially recommend the REB or the NEB to readers who already know their KJV and RSV. The differences are more fascinating than "odd." The best thing about the REB is its full commitment to the English language and willingness to write as English is written, risky as that may be. So-called "accurate" translations that give give English word equivalents without sounding like acual English usage fail in the task of translation, from my point of view.
Rating:
Summary: "Translation" issue is really "textual source" issue.
Review: A previous Amazon review by Michael K. Broadhead (see below) calls attention to an "oddity" in the REB's rendering of Jesus "anger" in Mark 1:41. Broadhead points out that KJV gives "compassion" and RSV gives "pity" for the same term. He could have added that the NEB -- the predecessor version to the REB -- gives "warm indignation". These words are indeed different. However, differences do not imply mistranslation, or that one of the translations has to be incorrect, or that the translators were careless. The REB rendering resulted from the translators' evaluation and selection of various textual and evidentiary sources, referred to as "witnesses." Tanslators have to assess and take into account divergent manuscrits in Greek, manuscripts of early translations into other lnaguages, and quotations from the New Testament by early Christian writers. Translators are highly conscious of the provisional basis of their judgements about the variants. I have read the NEB closely and comparatively. Setting aside the concept of accuracy, which is more elusive than we like to think and beyond the expertise of readers without training in ancient languages, beyond even that expertise of readers armed with lexicons, I have found the translation to be strong and convincing. I would especially recommend the REB or the NEB to readers who already know their KJV and RSV. The differences are more fascinating than "odd." The best thing about the REB is its full commitment to the English language and willingness to write as English is written, risky as that may be. So-called "accurate" translations that give give English word equivalents without sounding like acual English usage fail in the task of translation, from my point of view.
Rating: 
Summary: Studying the Bible as literature
Review: As a Study Bible, it is important to consider that Oxford's approach is to treat the books of the Bible as historical literature. As such, you will find many excellent study notes on literary themes, text sources and influences, as well as comparisons of similar passages. Prophetic and apocalyptic passages are interpreted historically (i.e. "Revelation" is about Rome and the emperors). You will *not* find devotional or denominational comments. As such, traditional Messianic passages in the OT are not always identified or translated [i.e. Genesis 3:15 uses a plural "They will bruise you...", which IMO undermines the overall theme of Genesis|Revelation as God's victory over Satan]. The NT notes identify major themes within the text, but do not tie them to doctrine. Of interest were comments in the notes on why the thematic content of certain passages was evidence of an author other than Paul in some "traditional" Pauline letters. Verse cross-referencing is limited; sources of OT text used in the NT are noted, though I found several instances where the original OT verse had been translated so freely that it did not even resemble the later quotation. In terms of book quality, this is okay. The paperback cover is good, but not as thick or durable as the earlier NEB edition I used in college. Paper quality is about the same - lightweight and slightly transparent (you will be able to see text from next page), though now with a slight gloss. Notes in pencil do not 'bleed' through, however, and will erase very cleanly without damage to the paper or ink. Typesetting is okay - though in the 'modern' style of mixing serif and sans serif font styles for the text and notes, respectively. The previous edition used a horizontal line to separate the study notes from the text - this is missing in the current edition. Finally, the REB translation notes are printed with the text, separate from the Oxford notes - an arrangement that is slightly awkward, though generally not obtrusive. If you're looking for a devotional study bible, this probably isn't your best choice. If you're looking for a more academic or literary approach to studying the Bible, I would recommend this edition highly, especially if used with a more literal Bible translation such as the NASB or Amplified. In the end, I do not read this on a regular basis due to translation concerns, but welcome the notes for extended study (3 stars for the REB translation and book quality; 5 stars for the Study Bible).
Rating:
Summary: A beautiful translation with some flaws
Review: I am very pleased with this (REB) translation. It truly lives up to the praise lavished on it for its beautifully balanced use of the English language. I think that for that reason, I usually reach first for this version among the various editions of the Bible that I own. There is one flaw, however, that is disappointing. Usually I don't object to the use of gender inclusive language unless it obstructs the flow or drastically changes the meaning of the text. The case in particular with the REB that disturbs me is found in various places in the first Epistle of John. The RSV translates 1 John 4:21 as, "And this commandment we have from him, that he who loves God should love his brother also." The NRSV substitutes "brother and sister" for "brother" (which is the word used in the Greek original) for gender inclusiveness. This is a good example of how the textual meaning is not changed (does anyone doubt that God commands us to love women too?) and the flow isn't disrupted. The REB, however, chooses to substitute "fellow Christian" in that phrase and similar ones. Assuming that the author of the Epistle used "brother" in this and other passages in the context of universal love for all humankind, the meaning is changed to one of love for only Christians. Consequentially the REB translators have introduced an element that the original language did not have, and (ironically) their alternative is less inclusive than the one they tried to broaden. Another puzzling decision was the placement of John 7:53 - 8:11 at the end of the Gospel. I understand that this passage appears in different places (if at all) in some manuscripts. Most other translations mark it somehow (with parentheses or italics) and footnote it, but leave it in its logical numerical sequence between John 7:52 and 8:12. The REB's treatment seems quirky because despite its physical placement the standard verse numbering is retained. Other than that, the Oxford Study Bible is a nice one to have. The annotations are adequate and the maps are especially well done.
Rating:
Summary: A beautiful translation with some flaws
Review: I am very pleased with this (REB) translation. It truly lives up to the praise lavished on it for its beautifully balanced use of the English language. I think that for that reason, I usually reach first for this version among the various editions of the Bible that I own. There is one flaw, however, that is disappointing. Usually I don't object to the use of gender inclusive language unless it obstructs the flow or drastically changes the meaning of the text. The case in particular with the REB that disturbs me is found in various places in the first Epistle of John. The RSV translates 1 John 4:21 as, "And this commandment we have from him, that he who loves God should love his brother also." The NRSV substitutes "brother and sister" for "brother" (which is the word used in the Greek original) for gender inclusiveness. This is a good example of how the textual meaning is not changed (does anyone doubt that God commands us to love women too?) and the flow isn't disrupted. The REB, however, chooses to substitute "fellow Christian" in that phrase and similar ones. Assuming that the author of the Epistle used "brother" in this and other passages in the context of universal love for all humankind, the meaning is changed to one of love for only Christians. Consequentially the REB translators have introduced an element that the original language did not have, and (ironically) their alternative is less inclusive than the one they tried to broaden. Another puzzling decision was the placement of John 7:53 - 8:11 at the end of the Gospel. I understand that this passage appears in different places (if at all) in some manuscripts. Most other translations mark it somehow (with parentheses or italics) and footnote it, but leave it in its logical numerical sequence between John 7:52 and 8:12. The REB's treatment seems quirky because despite its physical placement the standard verse numbering is retained. Other than that, the Oxford Study Bible is a nice one to have. The annotations are adequate and the maps are especially well done.
Rating:
Summary: The Best Translation for Reading There Is
Review: I carried a Revised English Bible with me through all three years of seminary; and constantly compared it to the Greek and Hebrew texts. Although it is not the most precise, literal translation (here I would lean towards the New Revised Standard because of my personal dislike for the scholarship behind the New American Standard), the sense of language and poetry in the REB is far superior to any reliable translation. For this reason, the REB is the translation that I read from the pulpit. The scholarly articles and footnotes in the Oxford edition are top-notch; although they have a decidedly Anglican flavor in places they are generally ecumenical and quite informative. If you were to only have one study Bible, this is the one I would recommend.
Rating:
Summary: The most lyrical, scholarly translation
Review: I carried a Revised English Bible with me through all three years of seminary; and constantly compared it to the Greek and Hebrew texts. Although it is not the most precise, literal translation (here I would lean towards the New Revised Standard because of my personal dislike for the scholarship behind the New American Standard), the sense of language and poetry in the REB is far superior to any reliable translation. For this reason, the REB is the translation that I read from the pulpit. The scholarly articles and footnotes in the Oxford edition are top-notch; although they have a decidedly Anglican flavor in places they are generally ecumenical and quite informative. If you were to only have one study Bible, this is the one I would recommend.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent Study Bible
Review: I have elsewhere reviewed the Revised English Bible, so suffice it to say that I prefer the New English Bible to the REB, though I must admit that as I transition to using modern language materials, the REB is particularlly useful wen it comes to the Books of the Apocrypha.
I have seen many notes herein about the poetic nature of the REB, and while parts of Ecclesiasticus are definately well done, I find the poetic material to be lacking. One who is searching for a wonderful poetic translation of the Scriptures into modern English should really be investigating the Jerusalem Bible. (See my review on amazon.com). My mark of a great poetic bible is the ability to chant the psalms, hymns, and canticles of the Scriptures flawlessly and simply - and the REB does not permit me to do so.
As to the edition in hand, the Oxford notes are, as usual, a plethora of context, context, context. While I don't agree with a great deal of modern Biblical scholarship, I find Oxford's articles to be very enlightening and easy to use. I have several Oxford Study Bibles (New American Bible, New English Bible, Revised Standard Version) and have found them all to be excellent resources. The REB Study Bible, which I purchased for use in Seminary, is another worthy addition to Oxford's line.
I still use it to this day for personal growth, sermon preparation, and individual devotion, and I believe you will find it to be a worthwhile addition to your library as well.
| 
