Rating: 
Summary: Lots of info but most Christians need not apply
Review: There's lots of historical info here, true. Some good outlines of the backgrounds of the books of the Bible and some nice essays at the end. The Protestant canon of the OT is supplemented by the Catholic and Orthodox Deuterocanonicals.The problem? This "bible" is loaded with unbelief. To a man, the "scholars" involved come from a radical theological background. They pretty much seem to doubt that any of the Biblical books were written by who they claimed to be. They attack the Bible's clear teaching on moral issues (e.g. homosexuality) and then try to explain them away with equivocation that would make Bill Clinton say "Enough!". Since the notes attack the ideas of inerrancy and infallibility left and right, most will be offensive for anyone from an Evangelical, Fundamental, or Traditional Catholic/Orthodox background; therefore, most of the Christian world will have little use for it.
Rating: 
Summary: Good at providing a single point of view
Review: This is a good commentary for learning what very liberal bible scholars believe. It is, however, very bad for getting a balanced look at the moderate, conservative, and liberal academic positions.
This is a very liberal publication. Don't count on the moderate and traditional views being portrayed accurately or in any good light (if they are portrayed at all).
I think that many of the ideas advocated in the commentary are unsubstantiated and often remarkably far-fetched. Sometimes the positions offered have been shown to be false more than twenty-five years ago! This is why I give it a 1 out of 5.
I recommend the purchase of the Navarre Bible (a commentary series). There you will find balanced, sensible, in-depth, and up-to-date commentary. It uses the more universally accepted RSVCE.
Rating:
Summary: Good at providing a single point of view
Review: This is a good commentary for learning what very liberal bible scholars believe. It is, however, very bad for getting a balanced look at the moderate, conservative, and liberal academic positions. This is a very liberal publication. Don't count on the moderate and traditional views being portrayed accurately or in any good light (if they are portrayed at all). I think that many of the ideas advocated in the commentary are unsubstantiated and often remarkably far-fetched. Sometimes the positions offered have been shown to be false more than twenty-five years ago! This is why I give it a 1 out of 5. I recommend the purchase of the New Interpreter's Bible (a commentary series). There you will find balanced, sensible, in-depth, and up-to-date commentary. It provides two very different and highly respected translations (NRSV and NIV).
Rating: 
Summary: Balanced look at the Bible.
Review: This is a great book for anyone trying to gain a more in depth perspective on the Bible and the knowledge to draw his own conclusions about some controversial topics. Although some of the commentary has a slightly liberal slant, it is overall pretty objective and well balanced.
Rating:
Summary: HA!
Review: This is a great work of fiction, however it goes on and on in 5th century righting boredom. It is also quite disturbing that people find this fiction to be true.
Rating: 
Summary: The Wait is Over!
Review: This is my favorite translation and I especially appreciate the ease of reading, typeface, font, and layout. While I am not a Bible scholar, I have found the notes conducive to in-depth study and I often read with a commentary at hand. In recent years, I have been deeply troubled by the study notes in the "Life Application" Study Bibles (Tyndale) in referencing the six "clobber passages" which have been selectively used to deny gay people their place in God's home. I was shocked at the level of hostility shown in the editorial comments of that series. This edition of the NSRV places these passages predominantly in the light of the gentiles' then-common practice of temple prostitution and sexual idol worship, which scholarly research has shown to be more reflective of that time and culture. With this translation, Bible study and research is a joy and comfort, and something I look forward to each day. I highly recommend this edition.
Rating:
Summary: The second edition is much better for commentary
Review: This Third Edition has a superior print type set and is more appealing to the eyes. The text is still the NRSV, which overall is an excellent translation, with the exception of some inappropriate inclusive language, eg. Proverbs 30:4, which refers directly to a father/son relationship, not parent/child. This rendering totally obfuscates the allusion to the Messiah. Anyway... The Second Edition is the one to get if you have any respect for the sacred text. Dr. Metzger was the editor and it has balanced commentary. At least the Second Edition acknowledges in 1 Cor 6:9 that the term "sodomite" refers to a male homosexual. The Third Edition tries to explain away any reference to homosexuality!!? How PC can you get? I want commentary that respects history and the Biblical Author. I can get PC mush on TV all day long. The only reason the Third Edition gets any stars is for production quality and use of the NRSV.
Rating:
Summary: The PC Bible
Review: Times are changing, & religious beliefs are being constantly modified, but here is something that you see about once or twice in a decade. The judeo-xian babble has always been curtialed, translated, & modernized, despite the final passage in the book of Revelations of not changing or excising any part of the fictional text. But as usual, this was an incremental process. In time, revised editions were published, as public attitudes changed, became more permissive, & more programmed. The Apocrypha, or, the deleted chapters in the babble, became so, when first the Dewey, then the King James versions were publicised. The Dewy version was conveniently modified to suit the dogma of the catholic religion. Even studious priests knew onlt vague references of these "forbidden books", which relate the nazarene's childhood, & travels abroad, both of which resulted in rather unchristianly behaviour. The church could not risk any blemishes on their "saviour's" precious reputation! To have them released would promore congregation fall-out & free-thinking-----they couldn't have that! The King James babble became sanctioned by the royal seal of approval, but it was really the (...) of the clergy who controlled the government. And more was modified by translators & scribes under his majesty's orders. As snip here, a clip there, an inference installed, a small semi-noticable addition made, whatever suited the rulers at the time. The babble, & religion, was as influential then, as the letharginator {TV} is now. The latest version come is The Oxford Annotated Bible. Sounds impressive. The name of a prestegious educational institution on the cover....."gee, they MUST be right!" What makes this version particularly notable, is its placating of "political correctness". This is The Politically Correct Bible. Granted, all have been so, as they were invented to regulate man's behaviour, but never has there been such a blatantly conformist version such as this. For instance, the xian wimps' treasured 'lord's prayer' itself, has been changed to suit the femasculists. Now, it's "our father-mother, who art in heaven"! It sounds like a weakan scheme to intigrate their blindlight idiotology, with xian foolosophy! A possible new-age take-over? Not likely. References to "darkness" have been changed, as to not offend the "fine sensibilities" of racists who think that everything is a pigmentation issue. Inferences to the story about jews killing jesus are carefully dissected & excised. They are re-writing mythistory here. The other babbles will become obsolete, & future generations will be brainwashed with this version instead. Consider this.....A xoid who still preaches & reads out of the older babbles being called 'a nut' by his own kind. Being accused of fabricating translations, & trying to bring an incorrect, arcane text into a mytheological discussion. "That's the OLD bible, WE only read out of the NEW one now...it's got a better translation." What they are REALLY thinking, if they had a shred of honesty to admit it, is "...this new translation is a lot better, I don't have to work at being so 'good' so hard". This is not a "better translation", but a modified agenda disguised as such. Somebody decided to push some issues & gain credibility. What better way than through the holey scriptures to justify a cause? Such as the wider acceptance of women into the blindlight priesthood? And in the reverandship? By & large, The Oxford Annotated Bible is a fell-good, please-everybody book of ubiquitus fairy-tales. The babble is now even MORE of a joke, as it now, more than ever, reads like a federal document, a liberal bill, rather than a stupornatural arcanum. Will it get passed? Probably. The braying nincompoops will follow. They care more for what everynone ELSE is doing, & copy it, rather than investigating The Torah, the New Testament, The Dead Sea Scrolls, & other blindlight babbles for that matter.
Rating:
Summary: The best study bible for "seekers"
Review: When the Oxford University Press labels this an "ecumenical" study bible, it's not kidding. The Apocrypha are included, naturally. (You don't have to read them, of course, but you will have to pay for them.) But the Old Testament is also respectfully referred to as "The Hebrew Bible". And all dates are given as BCE/CE rather than BC/AD. The annotations are just as scrupulously free of denominational bias. Of course, the only way it can manage that is by avoiding religious interpretation altogether. This makes the book less useful to those looking for an in-depth treatment of their particular faith, I suppose. But that's also what makes it invaluable to those of who are still "waiting in the hall" - as C.S. Lewis put it. That, combined with the title's decades of acceptance by men far more learned in the subject than I (and just the general classiness of the OUP), means I *trust* this Bible as I do no other I've seen on the market - as one can only trust someone who isn't trying to sell you anything. And, without wading too far into the muddy and turbulent waters of the translation issue, let me register my opinion that the New Revised Standard Version used here strikes me as the most literal translation that can still be considered good English. (It doesn't read with the absolute clarity of a good thought-for-thought version like the Good News Translation, but it far excels the New American Standard Bible - generally considered the single most literal English version - and the mega-popular but lamentable New International Version, which doesn't even have all-out-literalism as an excuse.) Furthermore, as a specimen of book manufacture, the New Oxford Annotated Bible is a giant among dwarves. The uncluttered double columns of text [11-pt. Times New Roman, I'm guessing] and single column of annotations at the bottom of the page, set with half-inch margins, printed on opaquer-than-average paper, is more readable than any non-Giant Print Bible I've ever seen. The words of Jesus are not printed in red, but if you're afraid you'll lose track of them, you can always highlight them with a red marker and draw pointing arrows labelled "Over Here!"
Rating:
Summary: BOOOOOOORING
Review: Where to start!?! Okay the beginning was cool. The wrath of god and what-not. But when/if you get to the book of laws... SOOOOZE!!! Oh and Duglord Jebus was a trip. Revalation was funny. But it leave you unfullfilled and wanting to cause destruction.
| 
