OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 29, 2014, 11:17:02 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Which of these Study Bibles do you recommend?  (Read 476 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Auntie Oak
Posts: 4,072



« on: May 08, 2014, 04:15:14 PM »

It's for a class, and they're oddly specific about needing to have one of these four:

1. Catholic Study Bible, NABRE. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.

2. The New Oxford Annotated Bible. NRSV with the Apocrypha, 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.

3. The HarperCollins Study Bible, student ed., revised and updated. San Francisco: HarperCollins, 2006.

4. The New Interpreter’s Study Bible, NRSV with Apocrypha.

Which one would you all recommend and why?
Logged

Liberalochian: Unionist-Ecumenism Lite™
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15,398


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #1 on: May 08, 2014, 04:27:20 PM »

2. The New Oxford Annotated Bible. NRSV with the Apocrypha, 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.

This is the least objectionable, as far as I can tell. 
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Auntie Oak
Posts: 4,072



« Reply #2 on: May 08, 2014, 05:00:25 PM »

2. The New Oxford Annotated Bible. NRSV with the Apocrypha, 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.

This is the least objectionable, as far as I can tell. 

That's what I was actually thinking, but what makes it the least objectionable for you?
Logged

Liberalochian: Unionist-Ecumenism Lite™
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Faith: refuse
Posts: 29,328


« Reply #3 on: May 08, 2014, 05:20:48 PM »

Of the ones mentioned I only have used (and I currently own) the Oxford one, though mine is a Third Edition. I can't give comparisons, but I can give a rundown of the one I do have if that'd help.
Logged

.
Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Auntie Oak
Posts: 4,072



« Reply #4 on: May 08, 2014, 05:28:08 PM »

Of the ones mentioned I only have used (and I currently own) the Oxford one, though mine is a Third Edition. I can't give comparisons, but I can give a rundown of the one I do have if that'd help.

That would be helpful, thank you. The only reason I can imagine she's insisting on one of these four is because of the expanded deuterocanon, but since she's a Protestant minister and Biblical scholar in Germany, I don't know why that would even matter to her.
Logged

Liberalochian: Unionist-Ecumenism Lite™
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15,398


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #5 on: May 08, 2014, 06:04:59 PM »

That's what I was actually thinking, but what makes it the least objectionable for you?

Out of four choices, three are the same translation: NRSV.  I don't like the NRSV, but I'm more familiar with the Oxford study Bibles, which is why I chose that one.

I might have suggested the Catholic Study Bible, but it uses the NAB, and with the sole exception of one verse in the entire Bible, I pretty much hate the NAB.   

If it's just about the Deuterocanon, are you sure you can't just buy another version?  If it has to be a study Bible, I would recommend the NOAB RSV w/Apocrypha.   
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Yurysprudentsiya
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA
Posts: 1,277


« Reply #6 on: May 08, 2014, 06:16:21 PM »

That's what I was actually thinking, but what makes it the least objectionable for you?

Out of four choices, three are the same translation: NRSV.  I don't like the NRSV, but I'm more familiar with the Oxford study Bibles, which is why I chose that one.

I might have suggested the Catholic Study Bible, but it uses the NAB, and with the sole exception of one verse in the entire Bible, I pretty much hate the NAB.   

If it's just about the Deuterocanon, are you sure you can't just buy another version?  If it has to be a study Bible, I would recommend the NOAB RSV w/Apocrypha.   


I use the New Oxford version as my reading Bible. 
Logged
Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Auntie Oak
Posts: 4,072



« Reply #7 on: May 08, 2014, 06:25:07 PM »

That's what I was actually thinking, but what makes it the least objectionable for you?

Out of four choices, three are the same translation: NRSV.  I don't like the NRSV, but I'm more familiar with the Oxford study Bibles, which is why I chose that one.

I might have suggested the Catholic Study Bible, but it uses the NAB, and with the sole exception of one verse in the entire Bible, I pretty much hate the NAB.    

If it's just about the Deuterocanon, are you sure you can't just buy another version?  If it has to be a study Bible, I would recommend the NOAB RSV w/Apocrypha.  


I see. I don't think I can just choose another version (syllabus seems to leave no option for that), and I think she chose the NRSV/NABRE because of their inclusive language.

Apparently, according to the rubric for my final paper, I can have points taken off for using "non-inclusive language." ¯\(°_o)/¯
« Last Edit: May 08, 2014, 06:25:18 PM by Nephi » Logged

Liberalochian: Unionist-Ecumenism Lite™
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15,398


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #8 on: May 08, 2014, 06:29:36 PM »

I see. I don't think I can just choose another version (syllabus seems to leave no option for that), and I think she the one chose the NRSV/NABRE because of their inclusive language.

Apparently, according to the rubric for my final paper, I can have points taken off for using "non-inclusive language." ¯\(°_o)/¯

Fixed it for you. 
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Auntie Oak
Posts: 4,072



« Reply #9 on: May 08, 2014, 06:34:19 PM »

I see. I don't think I can just choose another version (syllabus seems to leave no option for that), and I think she the one chose the NRSV/NABRE because of their inclusive language.

Apparently, according to the rubric for my final paper, I can have points taken off for using "non-inclusive language." ¯\(°_o)/¯

Fixed it for you. 

Thank you. All my patriarchal cisgender privilege just pours out when I type, I can't help it.
Logged

Liberalochian: Unionist-Ecumenism Lite™
Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Auntie Oak
Posts: 4,072



« Reply #10 on: May 09, 2014, 12:30:06 AM »

Does anyone know what significant differences there would be (if any) between NOAB 3rd ed. vs 4th ed.?
Logged

Liberalochian: Unionist-Ecumenism Lite™
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA (Old Calendar)
Posts: 6,789



« Reply #11 on: May 09, 2014, 12:50:54 AM »

It's for a class, and they're oddly specific about needing to have one of these four:

1. Catholic Study Bible, NABRE. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.

2. The New Oxford Annotated Bible. NRSV with the Apocrypha, 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.

3. The HarperCollins Study Bible, student ed., revised and updated. San Francisco: HarperCollins, 2006.

4. The New Interpreter’s Study Bible, NRSV with Apocrypha.

Which one would you all recommend and why?

The Oxford RSV is superior in most ways to the NRSV, but it doesn't appear that it's on the table for you. The NRSV just has too many presuppositions I can't get on board with in the translation process. "A wind from God" making it sound like he's farting to avoid the implications of "Spirit" in Christian theology, etc. In any Oxford edition, the commentary is HIGHLY critical of the source text, which can be helpful in some technical aspects of textual critical knowledge, but offers little in terms of spiritual wisdom. It's a certain manner of reading which is foreign to Orthodoxy and frankly foreign to believing Christianity. We shouldn't fear honest inquiry, but when the commentators are essential approaching the text as any other ancient text, it distorts the whole lens of apprehension.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2014, 12:52:05 AM by Alveus Lacuna » Logged
Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Auntie Oak
Posts: 4,072



« Reply #12 on: May 09, 2014, 12:58:06 AM »

The Oxford RSV is superior in most ways to the NRSV, but it doesn't appear that it's on the table for you. The NRSV just has too many presuppositions I can't get on board with in the translation process. "A wind from God" making it sound like he's farting to avoid the implications of "Spirit" in Christian theology, etc. In any Oxford edition, the commentary is HIGHLY critical of the source text, which can be helpful in some technical aspects of textual critical knowledge, but offers little in terms of spiritual wisdom. It's a certain manner of reading which is foreign to Orthodoxy and frankly foreign to believing Christianity. We shouldn't fear honest inquiry, but when the commentators are essential approaching the text as any other ancient text, it distorts the whole lens of apprehension.

LOL

But I agree completely with you. My professor-to-be is a feminist Biblical critic that works at a German university (sadly stuck in a distance learning course since the original professor went on a sabbatical), so I think that tells you what her response would be if I asked to use the RSV instead...
Logged

Liberalochian: Unionist-Ecumenism Lite™
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA (Old Calendar)
Posts: 6,789



« Reply #13 on: May 09, 2014, 04:06:12 PM »

My professor-to-be is a feminist Biblical critic that works at a German university (sadly stuck in a distance learning course since the original professor went on a sabbatical), so I think that tells you what her response would be if I asked to use the RSV instead...

You should try anyway, because the NRSV loses all of the poetry and soul that the RSV had. The RSV tried to keep the phrasing and familiarity of the KJV as a fundamental cultural text for English-speaking peoples, respect toward God with the formal Thees and Thous, etc. Some of the commentary could be pretty cold and calculated, but the translation itself was really an ecumenical landmark, as the original goal of the RSV included being a translation that took into account Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, Evangelical, etc. perspectives and aimed at something that was repectful toward and useful to everyone.

The NRSV epitomizes everything that frustrates me about lagging American textual critical school that is still stuck in Germany two hundred years ago. They're still getting over their American puritanical "Biblical inerrancy" fundamentalism using post-Lutheran liberal textual approaches that are extremely dated in terms of actually interesting and fresh ideas.

Try making a case with your professor why you think that the NRSV is garbage. Talk about how it betrays the cadence and tone of these ancient texts and makes them read like cardboard. These texts are originally beautifully written, but after these butchers are done with them you'd think they were written by a liberal arts graduate student. I think that there are actually more distortions of the text in seeking a theologically neutral translation than in what was done before with the RSV. It's too self conscious now and sounds so awkward, like a teenage boy asking out a hot cheerleader on a date. I stand by the Oxford RSV as an achievement worthy of a great deal of attention, while the NRSV is polluting and burying its significance in tepid mediocrity. I really can't beleive that Metzger had a strong hand in the NRSV. He was masterful in many ways with the RSV, so I wonder if they just tacked his name on the revisions of the 1991 revision. The version from the 70's with the 'Apocrypha' is the best. I'm sure most of the commentary is the same.

To hell with it, just order the real thing. Your stupid femenist professor probably doesn't know the difference anyway, so if you don't mention it, she won't notice.

http://www.amazon.com/Annotated-Apocrypha-Standard-Expanded-Hardcover/dp/0195283481

They have used copies for under $10.00, or you can just spring for a new one. This one is still in print because everyone knows how much better it is. No inclusive language, no replacing words like firmament with 'water dome', etc. The NRSV assumes that you're an idiot and that you're easily offended. It also assumes you've never read poetry and won't notice when songs/psalms have no life in them. End of rant. At least for now.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2014, 04:10:31 PM by Alveus Lacuna » Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.069 seconds with 40 queries.