The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha: An Ecumenical Study Bible

Rating:
Summary: 5 Stars for critical study of the Bible
Review: As much as I am a devout Christian, it is essential to consider the Bible in light of modern scholarship. For someone who doesn't have training in the original languages, but still wishes to profit from the use of language in study of their Bible (after all, Paul, Jesus, and Abraham did not speak in Jacobean English, ya know), this edition of the Bible is indispensible.

The notes are not unwieldy -- the Biblical text takes up generally 4/5 of the page. So it is not impractical for non-academic use. Each sequence and individual book has a scholarly introduction about it, which is profitable to read in order to have a firm understanding of the history of the text. All of this fosters an intelligent reading of the Bible. Another asset of the edition, there's a mini-concordance (well... they don't actually call it that) in the back where you can look up some words very quickly to find major instances of them.

If you want a devotional book or an edition with notes to confirm your own beliefs, you should look elsewhere. To learn more about the Bible and how to read it, this is one of the best investments you can make. If you can get another translation to read alongside it, that's probably best. Personally I'm apathetic about the gender language issue -- it's awkward in some places but still doesn't detract too much from this as compared with other translations.

If you don't have an NRSV, definitely purchase this edition!

Rating:
Summary: Who Are We?
Review: Metzger, Murphy, etal have produced a fantastic easily-read Bible with helpful notes and important historical/geographical articles. I have used this Bible for many years in preaching and Bible study and continue to be amazed at its usefulness to me and to students. I highly recommend it!

Rating:
Summary: The best one-volume study Bible available in English
Review: The editors have made every effort, consistent with the results of current textual scholarship, to keep within the tradition of English translation extending back to Tyndale and the Authorized Version. The remnants of antiquated language that the RSV kept in select passages (e.g., Psalm 22) have been removed. The translation is not always elegant, but it is highly serviceable, especially for those who do not have command of Hebrew or Greek. Do not be put off by the reviews lamenting its "political correctness": the editors do use inclusive language for humankind, in places where context and/or language clearly warrant (e.g., *adelphoi* in the epistles is rendered "brothers and sisters" rather than "brethren" - does anyone seriously doubt women were among the auditors when these letters were read?); otherwise, their practice is fairly conventional. If there is a political agenda in this debate, I do not think it can be laid at the doors of Messrs. Murphy and Metzger.

Rating:
Summary: Bad Service
Review: The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) will always be my favorite translation and my default bible. This is due to its scholarship, faithfulness to the Greek and Hebrew, and its inclusive language. The New Oxford Annotated Bible (NOAB) is a different matter. The notes in the NOAB sow seeds of doubt. Just read the notes in Daniel. The NOAB claims the whole book is a story. They sow these seeds in other parts of the Word as well. I recomend the Orginal OAB instead or the Access Bible. It's way better than the NOAB. If you chose to use the NOAB, just be prepared for a lot of doubt!

Rating:
Summary: The Best translation and the Best Study Bible
Review: The New Revised Standard Version is the finest translation available today, and the New Oxford Annotated Bible is the best study edition of the Bible. I am a Byzantine Catholic who has a deep devotion to the Bible as God's word, and yet appreciates the best of modern bible scholarship.

The NRSV translation is very literal yet very easy to read. It employs inclusive language for human beings, but never for the Holy Trinity. The NRSV is a better overall tranlsation than the RSV, not least of all because it is based on more precise and abundant textual evidence, especially for the Old Testament.

It is beautiful and poetic (take for example, the classic Isaiah 53 Passage). It is a product of Protestant, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Jewish scholarship, as is the New Oxford Annotated Bible. The NRSV with Apocrypha carries the imprimatur of both the US and Canadian Catholic Bishops, and used in the Canadian Lectionary for Mass. It is quoted in the English edition of the Catholic Catechism, along with the original RSV.

The New Oxford Annotated Bible has a venerable tradition behind it parallel to the RSV/NRSV. The first edition came out in 1962. In 1966, The Oxford Annotated Bible came out with the Apocrypha, and received the imprimatur of Richard Cardinal Cushing of Boston. It was the first "common Bible" hailed by Catholic, Protestants and Orthodox. In 1977, the Expanded New Oxford Annotated Bible with the second edition RSV text came out, with an expanded Apocrypha, which reflected the canon of the Eastern Orthodox Churches. It was the most complete bible ever.

And finally, in 1991, the New Oxford Annotated Bible in the New RSV was published, continuing the great tradition of this venerable study bible. This edition too, has the fuller Apocrypha, which includes Psalm 151 and 3rd and 4th Maccabees. As a Byzantine Catholic, I appreciate the fuller canon, which has all of the books of the Greek Septuagint. The Greek Septuagint was the bible used by the earliest Christians, and is still the official bible of the Eastern Orthodox Churches.

The updated study notes are a vast improvement over the RSV/New Oxford Annotated Bible of 1977. I appreciate for example, that the notes in John chapter 6 admit a Eucharistic interpretation more clearly than the 1977 edition. I find that most of the notes do not conflict with my Catholic faith.

The NRSV is my favorite translation, followed by the old RSV and the New Jerusalem Bible. The New Oxford Annotated Bible is my favorite study bible. I would not say that this bible has a "liberal" bias in the notes. Rather, the scholars have a high view of the bible, but accept certain critical theories, much like many contemporary Catholic and neo-Evangelical scholars. Princeton Scholar Bruce Metzger, an evangelical Presbyterian, is the chief editor for both the NRSV translation and the New Oxford Study Edition. He has a high view of scripture, as can be ascertained by Lee Strobel's interview with him in his book, the Case for Christ. Metzger's name has been associated with both the RSV/NRSV and the New Oxford Annotated Bible during their entire histories. The RSV/NRSV and the New Oxford Annotated Bible have been intertwined for nearly forty years, and will continue to help people understand God's word. The New Oxford Annotated Bible is designed to study the NRSV Bible. I highly recommend it.

Rating:
Summary: 5 Stars for critical study of the Bible
Review: The NRSV is a laudable translation of the Bible. The inclusive gender language is a major improvement. The annotations are very helpful, but appear to be essentially identical to RSV annotations from 30 years ago. The software runs well on Macs - it's stable, and, once you are familiar with the interface, very easy to use.

Rating:
Summary: Good Bible, Good With Macintosh
Review: The NRSV is a laudable translation of the Bible. The inclusive gender language is a major improvement. The annotations are very helpful, but appear to be essentially identical to RSV annotations from 30 years ago. The software runs well on Macs - it's stable, and, once you are familiar with the interface, very easy to use.

Rating:
Summary: The NRSV and the modern agenda
Review: The NRSV is a revision of the RSV, regarded by scholars as the most literally accurate translation of the Bible. When the NRSV was published, it attempted a consistent policy of translation that would exclude bias in favor of the male gender. For the most part, the NRSV is a brilliant translation by an array of scholars with impeccable credentials. I have three reservations regarding the translation, which I use:

First, a person cannot help gain the impression that the translators have consistently asked themselves the following (modern) question: Is this or that particular passage about gender? If not, then they have felt at liberty to translate WITHOUT representing the gender of the person in question. For instance, in Philippians 2:5, the translators have apparently asked: Is the gender of the incarnate Christ the main point of the writer? Since most would agree that gender is NOT the point, i.e. the writer is not emphasizing the fact that Jesus became a MAN as opposed to a WOMAN. And yet, are we not saying less than the text intends if we simply translate "human"? Was Jesus a human? Was he not also and more specifically a MALE?

Second, in respect to the problem of gender bias in Greek and Hebrew. In the Preface to the NRSV, the translators state the following: "During the almost half a century since the publication of the RSV, many in the churches have become sensitive to the danger of linguistic sexism arising from the inherent bias of the English language towards the masculine gender, a bias that in the case of the Bible has often restricted or obscured the meaning of the original text." This is misleading as it implies that whereas the English language favors the masculine gender, Hebrew and Greek do not. This is wishful thinking. Both Hebrew and Greek favor the male gender-even a first year student of these languages knows that. For example, "adelphos" refers to a brother although it may mean a sister. The translation of "adelphos" as "Brothers and sisters" is correct from the standpoint of the situation of the early Church, in that when Paul addressed his congregations, he was speaking to both sexes. In addition, "Brothers and sisters" it is theologically correct, in that a strong case can be made for restating the Bible in a non-gender-biased language. SEMANTICALLY, however, it is mistaken, since it puts forward to the modern reader the erroneous notion that the Greek language, and more importantly, those writers of the NT who made use of it, were NOT biased in favor of men, whereas the opposite is true. Should translations ignore the prejudice inherent in the original languages?

3. Finally, I was surprised to discover that the translation "Son of man" in the NRSV was to some degree motivated by a desire not to offend the sensibilities of certain scholars who participated on the project. One of the scholars, who is best left unnamed, threatened to resign from the board of translators, if his translation of the Hebrew "BEN ADAM" was not rendered as "MORTAL". Christians immediately recognize the problem because the phrase BEN ADAM was used by Jesus of himself and has important theological implications. By rendering it as "Mortal" one would never know this. This translator was not a Christian, and the question remains: should passages in the Old Testament that refer to the Messiah be left in the hands of non-Christians? Here we have a case where the tranlator has ignored the fact that Jesus used the term of himself. I think that ought not to happen.

This edition of the Oxford Annotated has the notes of the Second Edition, which are different from the notes to the Third Edition, but just as useful, if not more useful in parts.


Rating:
Summary: Very Good Study Bible
Review: This Bible uses the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible, which is very easy to read, yet highly accurate. The gender inclusive nature of the translation has bothered some, and can seem foreign to those of us raised on other versions, but in my opinion this does not detract from the overall quality. The annotations could be best described as "moderate" theologically, and they give a good insight into modern biblical scholarship. I sometimes find that the annotations are too short and do not go into enough detail on specific topics. The information at the end on biblical criticism and history is very useful for those studying the Bible. Although I do not use this as much as the Harper Collins, I still find it an excellent production.

Rating:
Summary: Excellent for the Biblical Scholar
Review: This massive tome has it all--the Hebrew bible (aka the Old Testament), the Apocryphal books, and the New Testament. I'm a history and religion major, so I've had to make use of this Bible many times, and I haven't even had to dig into the Old Testament yet.

The best functions of this book are the copius annotations and translator notes found on every page. They help guide the novice along when some of the text gets a little dense. The annotations help link quotations to their proper place in the other books of the bible. Most bibles have this feature, but this edition has the best annotations I've seen. The translator's notes are nice, showing the reader where the Greek or Hebrew words could have had alternate meanings to the English. It also points out where some ancient texts may have omitted or added text, and then tells you what it was. Very handy, I must say.

This bible also has tons of explanatory material about the text: historical information on biblical times, various literary forms used in the Bible, explanations of ancient modes of writing, etc. All of this information is very helpful to getting more out of reading the Bible.

As a budding religion major, I've yet to explore all of the information this edition provides, but for the biblical scholar, this is the book to go with. It will take you far in your studies.

For the casual reader, this Bible may not be as useful. Many people like to read on their own and make their own interpretations out of the scripture. In these cases, the annotations and explanatory notes will not be helpful, but could actually be a hinderance. Some want to read the Bible in a new, updated, modern English version. I'd recommend the Good News Bible for these readers.

Overall, a must for the biblical scholar. I took a class on Paul, and I was glad to have this bible along to help get through some of his deep theological discussions!