Search for a Study Bible!

[Epistemes]

Personally, I use and recommend the ESV Study Bible. It’s the best study bible I’ve found, regardless of persuasion. The translation is excellent – a nice balance of literalness with elegant and readable English – as are the extensive notes and maps… but as others have said, it is very definitely edited from a Calvinist perspective. That’s something I know enough about to be able to mentally compensate for. It is not specifically anti-Catholic, but it is specifically pro-Calvinist.

Would I still use it were I to convert to Catholicism? Probably, but in conjunction with Catholic sources, such as the DR and NJB.

While it’s possible that I may ultimately purchase a copy of the ESV Study Bible for its translation and nice charts and maps, I, as a faithful and mindful Catholic, could never bring myself to purchase something like this in the genuine leather and consider it my primary go-to Bible. As I’ve already stated concerning the NISB, I wouldn’t be comfortable investing in a Bible which I would conscientiously object to because of the notes. That’s why my selection of “runners up” are all either ecumenical secular or Catholic Bibles. Don’t get me wrong: again, I have no problem buying alternate translations and opinions which I keep in my personal library, but the point of this thread is to hopefully find one Bible to be used for the criteria which I set out in the OP.

 

[Epistemes]

Bible Reader,

What are your thoughts on the other NOAB editions prior to the 4th?

Also, how does the HarperCollins Study Bible compare?

 

[Izdaari]

While it’s possible that I may ultimately purchase a copy of the ESV Study Bible for its translation and nice charts and maps, I, as a faithful and mindful Catholic, could never bring myself to purchase something like this in the genuine leather and consider it my primary go-to Bible. As I’ve already stated concerning the NISB, I wouldn’t be comfortable investing in a Bible which I would conscientiously object to because of the notes. That’s why my selection of “runners up” are all either ecumenical secular or Catholic Bibles. Don’t get me wrong: again, I have no problem buying alternate translations and opinions which I keep in my personal library, but the point of this thread is to hopefully find one Bible to be used for the criteria which I set out in the OP.

I understand. In your situation, I’d probably feel the same way.

 

[Bible_Reader]

What are your thoughts on the other NOAB editions prior to the 4th?

I’ll skip versions before the NOAB1 and start with that. All of the versions I discuss are available from Amazon either used or new (although the NOAB2 is out of print and only available used for a reasonable price.) You can follow the links and use the Amazon “look inside” feature to see how they are laid out.

The NOAB1 is edited by Metzger and May but is based on the revised RSV. It is still in print, and it is the RSV that I use. (The revised RSV was revised from the RSV-CE, and is basically an improvement. Almost of the changes in the RSV-CE are reflected directly in the text or the footnotes. However, it does not have imprimatur or the special RSV-CE “explanatory notes”.) I like it a lot, but you’ll only want to get it if you prefer working with the RSV. The layout is easy to read and the notes are brief and generally non-interpretive. Metzger and May were both on the RSV committee, so this version has the benefit of helping to reflect the committee’s thought.

The NOAB2 switched editors to Metzger and Murphy – the first time a Catholic was an editor of the NOAB series. It represents a switch to the NRSV, but the commentary was still relatively brief and the text was easy to read. Many people consider this to be the high point point of the entire series.

The NOAB3 (regular and augmented series) switched editors to Coogan, with Bretler, Newsom, and Perkins as sub-editors. This version increased the note size considerably, in part to compete with the HarperCollins – its main textbook competitor. Some critics thought the NOAB3 was more liberal than the NOAB2, claiming the notes took a softer line on homosexuality, for example.

The NOAB4 increased the note size even further, and is an improvement in most ways over the NOAB3 – except for physical layout. The paper is thinner (and the text bleed through the pages) and I don’t like the layout as much. However, the actual content is nicely up-to-date; although the text doesn’t talk very much about disputes in scholarly circles. (For example, the notes to Romans don’t explains the different camps and approaches to studying that book.)

Also, how does the HarperCollins Study Bible compare?

The *HarperCollins *(HC), now in its second edition, quickly became the #2 study Bible in classrooms after it appeared. It is also based on the NRSV. The notes contained considerably more detailed accounts than the NOAB2 and NOAB3, although the text lacked the essays found in the NOAB series. Between the HC1 and HC2, the layout changed a lot – mostly for the worse. The margins became super-tiny in the HC2 and the black and white maps in the text are a disaster – they are fuzzy – it is as if no one bothered to check the page proofs. Similarly, the notes were not as heavily edited as the NOAB notes – there is plenty of repetition in the notes and more than a few typos. However, the contributors are all first rate.

Like the NOAB series, the HC series is not really set up for devotional use. I personally prefer the NOAB series (except for the layout and thin pages in the NOAB4) because I think it is better edited, but I’ve met many teachers and readers who prefer the HC.

---

I should mention that the NOAB series is also available in leather if you like that (I prefer hardcover for Bibles, but many readers prefer leather.)

All of these versions involve some sort of compromise. My hope is that in the coming decade, we’ll start to see Catholic study Bibles and academic ecumenical study Bibles that incorporate the same sort of beautiful layout that the ESV Study Bible uses. (Another Protestant study Bible with beautiful layout is Zondervan’s NIV Archaeological Study Bible. That particular Bible has some real factual whoppers, so I can’t recommend it, but the pictures and layout are top-notch.)

In terms of pure content (ignoring typesetting issues), I think the academic Oxford Study Bibles – the NOAB4, the Catholic Study Bible, the Jewish Study Bible (contains Hebrew Bible only), the NRSV Cross-Reference, the parallel Bibles (especially ,Catholic Comparative New Testament the Precise Parallel New Testament, the Complete Parallel Bible, the Parallel Apocrypha) are all top notch as academic resources. The next step up from them involves multi-volume Bibles.

 

[Epistemes]

So, I got my hands on both the NOAB-4 and the NISB and examined them briefly. There are, of course, pros and cons about each one, but I will touch on the highlights based on my initial impression:

As far as the actual text and typeset of the Bibles, I find the NISB easier on the eyes, especially with the section headings. It’s well-spaced and, generally speaking, cleaner looking. (And, did I mention that the section headings are a bonus?) There is some “bleeding” in both Bibles, but I find that such a thing really isn’t an issue for me. I like how both Bibles have the notes clearly demarcated away from the text. This was a huge problem for me with the HarperCollins Study Bible, which I own a paperback copy of: the text and the notes seemed to want to mesh on the page. This proved very distracting. I find that I prefer the Sans Serif font for the notes in the NOAB-4 as this tends to train my eye: if I’m looking for notes, I go from one font to another. I also find searching for notes in the NOAB-4 quicker than in the NISB. The NOAB-4 uses subheadings for the notes (why couldn’t they do the same for the actual text?), which is, as I’ve mentioned twice already, a real bonus.

As far as the notes themselves are concerned, I find that I prefer the secular neutrality of the NOAB-4 versus the opinionated NISB. I can see how some might think of the NISB as liberal, and I’m sure a great many conservative Catholics would be downright scandalized by its attempt to smooth over terse denominational dogmatic definitions - and this is really the NISB’s greatest strength and weakness: it’s just too theological. As I read the notes, I feel like I’m reading a catechism on biblical liberalism. If I want to read theology, I’ll pick up a commentary of my choice. The NOAB-4, I can see already, can also be regarded as liberal, but it does so in a very succinct, non-verbose manner. I like it’s historical-critical, hands-off approach when it comes to religious interpretation.

Therefore, based on this, and a few other things besides, I think I will invest in the NOAB-4 and give it a try over the course of the next half year and see if it doesn’t bear continual usage beyond until something better is introduced on the market or whatever.