New Oxford Annotated Bible, 4th Ed. With Apocrypha

  • Thread starter Thread starter Porknpie
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Porknpie

Guest
I was given this bible as a gift but really don’t know much about it other than I was told it is commonly used in academics and the language is gender inclusive. Appreciate any insights provided. :confused:
 
I have the New Oxford Annotated Bible, copyright 1962, 1973, 1977, that says it is “An Ecumenical Study Bible.” It’s the Revised Standard Version. Is yous NRSV?
 
Either way the notes an commentary - 'cept for a few issues, are rather orthodox.
 
Jim_Dandy said:
I have the New Oxford Annotated Bible, copyright 1962, 1973, 1977, that says it is “An Ecumenical Study Bible.” It’s the Revised Standard Version. Is yous NRSV?
Click to expand...
Yes, it’s a NRSV…
 
The NRSV contains a pretty literal translation of the Greek and Hebrew; useful if you need a close reading of the text but not a very beautiful translation IMO. As for the NOAB 4th, I have found the introductory comments to each book quite helpful on occasions where I need a quick reference to background information. I have not found that the editors have tried much in the way of commentary; they tend to stick with factual data and major themes found in the various books. BTW: as the title of the Bible may suggest, it follows the Protestant layout and puts the so-termed “Deuterocononical” books between the Old and New Testament in their own section. If this upsets you, it is not the translation for you.
 
I’ve used the NOAB for years…I have the 2nd ed with Apoc/Expanded Edition.

Back in the '70’s this was published under the title “The Common Bible”…it contains those books used by the Orthodox but not used by Catholics or Protestants…and of course the books used by Catholics and Orthodox not used by most Protestants.
 
I have that particular edition, and while it can come in handy for someone who knows a lot about their faith, I’d still be careful with it because it espouses liberal scholarship and has a tendency to accuse Scripture of being dishonest or mythological. It often speaks in a matter-of-fact manner about how the Scripture contradicts itself, or exaggerates things, or gives false history, or how it’s historical myth written as propaganda, etc. etc. It has some useful facts, but bloody hell is it riddled with heresy. One would excommunicate themselves if they were to embrace a lot of the things proposed as fact within it.
 
Let me also mention that the NRSV translation itself, while a bit tainted with liberalism, is still a fine translation. My favorite in fact. It uses the most up-to-date textual scholarship and makes for a smooth and beautiful contemporary-language read. Plus it comes in a single column edition! But the biggest issues with it are an over-zealous use of inclusive language that sometimes mars the meaning of certain passages, and an Old Testament translation that goes more for Jewish renderings than traditional Christian ones. Also a few passages are translated in a way that makes them sound contradictory. But aside from the gender inclusive language, the RSV also contains those flaws as well. Neither one is really all that conservative, but it seems only those from a conservative Protestant background are aware of that. And the NAB and NJB have those problems too. Not to be all doom and gloom, but as Catholics – aside from the DRV – we really have no conservative translations in the vein of say the NASB or ESV. They’re all kind of liberal-y.
 
WoundedIcon said:
Let me also mention that the NRSV translation itself, while a bit tainted with liberalism, is still a fine translation. My favorite in fact. It uses the most up-to-date textual scholarship and makes for a smooth and beautiful contemporary-language read. Plus it comes in a single column edition! But the biggest issues with it are an over-zealous use of inclusive language that sometimes mars the meaning of certain passages, and an Old Testament translation that goes more for Jewish renderings than traditional Christian ones. Also a few passages are translated in a way that makes them sound contradictory. But aside from the gender inclusive language, the RSV also contains those flaws as well. Neither one is really all that conservative, but it seems only those from a conservative Protestant background are aware of that. And the NAB and NJB have those problems too. Not to be all doom and gloom, but as Catholics – aside from the DRV – we really have no conservative translations in the vein of say the NASB or ESV. They’re all kind of liberal-y.
Click to expand...
Thank you everyone for your insights.

WoundedIcon, can pull out a quote showing where the gender inclusive language creates a problem? Appreciate your help.
 
Psalm 1, which is normally translated with a singular masculine pronoun and is commonly taken as referring to Christ, is translated in the plural. In Ezekiel and Daniel the traditional phrase “Son of Man” is translated as “Mortal” thus obscuring the Christological reference. Sometimes, as I said, some passages are pluralized in order to avoid masculine pronouns. I know there’s more, but I only faintly remember reading about them years ago.
 
WoundedIcon said:
Let me also mention that the NRSV translation itself, while a bit tainted with liberalism, is still a fine translation. My favorite in fact. It uses the most up-to-date textual scholarship and makes for a smooth and beautiful contemporary-language read. Plus it comes in a single column edition! But the biggest issues with it are an over-zealous use of inclusive language that sometimes mars the meaning of certain passages, and an Old Testament translation that goes more for Jewish renderings than traditional Christian ones. Also a few passages are translated in a way that makes them sound contradictory. But aside from the gender inclusive language, the RSV also contains those flaws as well. Neither one is really all that conservative, but it seems only those from a conservative Protestant background are aware of that. And the NAB and NJB have those problems too. Not to be all doom and gloom, but as Catholics – aside from the DRV – we really have no conservative translations in the vein of say the NASB or ESV. They’re all kind of liberal-y.
Click to expand...
I’ll stick with the RSV-2CE:thumbsup:
 
Jim_Dandy said:
I have the New Oxford Annotated Bible, copyright 1962, 1973, 1977, that says it is “An Ecumenical Study Bible.” It’s the Revised Standard Version. Is yous NRSV?
Click to expand...
I have this edition (w/ the RSV) and really like it. This version is still published, and what I like about it is it uses the RSV,it is the most compact Study (annotated) Bible I have come across. It is about the size of your average reference Bible and still has all the Oxford maps in the back. The genuine leather cover is nice! My only complaint is that the deutro-canonical books are placed at the end of the Bible instead of between the Old and New Testaments (as Oxford does with the later editions (using the NRSV).
My dream Bible would be this one, using the RSV-2CE translation, and with the books in the Catholic order!!!🙂 Oh well, I could win the Lottery too!:rolleyes:
 
My dream would be a Catholic translation good enough so that Catholics didn’t have to use the Protestant biased RSV just because they don’t have anything else!
 
Jerry-Jet said:
My dream would be a Catholic translation good enough so that Catholics didn’t have to use the Protestant biased RSV just because they don’t have anything else!
Click to expand...
Sorry, it’s intentional on our part.😉 One of the goals of Protestant, Evangelical Scholarship is to make our “lower criticisms” so good as force other academics to be dependent on us. This is mainly aimed at secular scholarship, but I suppose it might apply to Catholic scholarship as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top