JenellYB Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 Norm wrote: "You will enjoy the parables most, I think. They are often humorous! Imagine - a theology tome with a schtick." Dr. Mitchell, head of the Religious Studies dept where I attended, demonstrated often that fully understanding many of the parables Jesus is said to have spoken is enhanced by knowing Jewish parables in common use at the time, because many of Jesus's parables based upon Jewish parables the people were already familiar with, but in which he modified them slightly to give them a "different twist" to make His points. Jenell Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NORM Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 I don't deny the devotional use of the scriptures in asking God to speak to me now through these ancient writings. Just to be clear: I don't think the Bible is G-d speaking to mankind. I don't think that G-d involves itself with us in that way. I think the Bible is an example of human beings trying to comprehend the often brutal world around them, and their struggles with mortality. I think the Bible represents the polar opposite of G-d speaking to man. This is part of the reason I discount Bible commentary for myself. Most of it assumes that the Bible is G-d speaking to man, and so it becomes a game to unravel the mystery. I don't think there is any hidden meaning or deeper mystery. I think it accurately reflects a portion of the evolution of human thought and philosophy (except where it was intentionally used as propaganda - but there again is a human agenda). When I was a student of Christianity, I took classes to learn classical Greek and Biblical Hebrew. I found this far more useful than reading commentary. There are words and thoughts in Greek and Hebrew for which there are no real English equivalents. It was similar to rereading El ingenioso hidalgo don Quijote de la Mancha (Don Quixote) by Miguel Cervantes in the original Spanish. It is full of puns and wordplay that is missing in the English translations. Eventually, I came to a better understanding of what the probable intent of the writings might have been. For example, when you understand the true intention behind the Shema - Sh'ma Yis'ra'eil Adonai Eloheinu Adonai echad. - you realize how truly absurd the concept of the trinity was to those early Jews who formed the first followers of Jesus' teaching. The Christian trinity means ONE God in three SEPARATE beings; Father, Son and Holy Spirit - a very gnostic, Greek / Roman idea. The echad in the Shema means the exact opposite: the people of Yis'ra'eil united in ONE G-d (who is spirit, BTW). It really is quite difficult to explain in English words! That's the traditional understanding. Skeptics like me understand the Shema as a position statement in direct contrast to the polytheists and pantheists inhabiting the surrounding hills. As in; "look at us; our G-d is different (better) than yours." NORM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NORM Posted December 8, 2011 Share Posted December 8, 2011 Norm wrote: "You will enjoy the parables most, I think. They are often humorous! Imagine - a theology tome with a schtick." Dr. Mitchell, head of the Religious Studies dept where I attended, demonstrated often that fully understanding many of the parables Jesus is said to have spoken is enhanced by knowing Jewish parables in common use at the time, because many of Jesus's parables based upon Jewish parables the people were already familiar with, but in which he modified them slightly to give them a "different twist" to make His points. Jenell Yes, many of them are. The one about Jesus "punishing" the olive tree is one. I wish I could remember that one - it was quite funny. My favorite Talmudic parable is the one about when Abraham was a child. In his father's garden were many stone idols representing the various gods of Ur. One day, Abraham misbehaved, and his father sent him to the garden to reflect. When he came back to check on Abraham, one of the stone idols was smashed - a hammer lying on the ground beneath it. "Abraham, what have you done? Why did you smash that idol?" "I didn't do it, father." Well, if you didn't do it, then who did?" "I don't know. Why don't you ask one of the other gods?" NORM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt67 Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 Glint study bibles provide a good context for putting some passages in perspective. For example, the story in the John with the adulterous woman. I believe the RSV has a comment that says that this story is not found in some of the earliest manuscripts and that it may have been added. I was shocked to hear this for the first time. I also find study bibles incredibly helpful (I have about three of them which deal with different views - conservative, moderate and liberal) in cross referencing scripture. When Jesus talks about something, it can be cross referenced to something in the OT which is relevant. It also shows something that I think people tend to forget - namely that Jesus preached the gospel, which essentially is the OT. This is the "bible" he knew and preached. Him being the one who fulfilled it he showed us how to go beyond the yoke of the old law. To me, anyway, the rest of the NT is commentary on the four gospels. To me, Paul and the other writers, as well as every theologian for the past 2000 is commentary on the commentary the human attempt to understand Jesus and the new creation is our feeble, human terms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 It also shows something that I think people tend to forget - namely that Jesus preached the gospel, which essentially is the OT. This is the "bible" he knew and preached. Yes, this is an important fact - NT references to scriptures are references to the OT, principally the Torah (Pentateuch). George Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
texasgreyhound Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Newbie here! I really like the Harper-Collins NRSV Study Bible (didn't see that one listed yet). My NT professor in college swore by it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Fair Closure from the person who said they didn't like study bibles.: As result of this thread I asked for and got for Christmas "The New Oxford Annotated Bible," NRSV version w/ Apocrypha, College Edition. Dutch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JenellYB Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Oh, I feel so honored! You chose my favorite! Jenell Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halcyon Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Can I ask what people think of this study bible? I've had my eye on it for a while. I understand it's a bit more conservative than I'd probably like, but the maps and history look interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 (edited) Hi, Halcyon, In addition to those mentioned in this thread I would add this one. It is progressive, including footnotes from a feminist theologian's perspective. The New Interpreter's Study Bible: New Revised Standard Version With the Apocrypha by Walter J. Harrelson (May 2003) This is comparable in price to the ESV Study. Could you tell us why you have started with the ESV? Our suggestions might be more helpful if we knew more. Dutch Edited February 29, 2012 by glintofpewter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JenellYB Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Way to fundamentalist evanglical oriented for me. But that's just me. And I'm not fond of the ASV version. Since I went to NRSV, I guess I'm really stuck to it. I do still refer to KJV to find familiar text, all main concordiances and Hebrew/Greeklexicons are keyed to KJV text, too. And I still find some of the language poetic and beautiful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halcyon Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 (edited) Hi, Halcyon, In addition to those mentioned in this thread I would add this one. It is progressive, including footnotes from a feminist theologian's perspective. The New Interpreter's Study Bible: New Revised Standard Version With the Apocrypha by Walter J. Harrelson (May 2003) This is comparable in price to the ESV Study. Could you tell us why you have started with the ESV? Our suggestions might be more helpful if we knew more. Dutch I have the NRSV and an ESV (not the one I linked) and I actually find them quite comparable in most places that I've compared so far. That said, if they had this study bible in an NRSV translation I would prefer that...but they don't. Thank you for your suggestion! I am looking at it now on Amazon and it looks very interesting. I am going to try to find a preview online so I can see some sample pages. Thank you. Edited February 29, 2012 by Halcyon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halcyon Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Way to fundamentalist evanglical oriented for me. But that's just me. And I'm not fond of the ASV version. Since I went to NRSV, I guess I'm really stuck to it. I do still refer to KJV to find familiar text, all main concordiances and Hebrew/Greeklexicons are keyed to KJV text, too. And I still find some of the language poetic and beautiful. I too like the NRSV translation the best. However, I can't seem to find a study bible that I like using NRSV translation. I own a few study bibles which are really quite worthless to me (New Living Translation gifted to me) and am looking for something more informative and historical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 the New Interpreter's footnote to Mark 8:31-38 stressed that the idea of the necessity of suffering has been used to oppress women and others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JenellYB Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 .."really quite worthless...New Living Translation..." Lol. Yeah, Guess I'd have to agree that one is at the top of my 'worthless' list as well..... As noted above, I really like my Oxford NRSV annotated w/aprocypha study bible, college edition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halcyon Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 (edited) the New Interpreter's footnote to Mark 8:31-38 stressed that the idea of the necessity of suffering has been used to oppress women and others. Interesting connection. Edited February 29, 2012 by Halcyon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JenellYB Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 the New Interpreter's footnote to Mark 8:31-38 stressed that the idea of the necessity of suffering has been used to oppress women and others. How does it relate this text to that? I don't see it myself...what am i missing? Jenell Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halcyon Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 THank you Jenell. I have the Oxford Bible Commentary, which I enjoy very much. I wonder how similar it is to your suggestion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JenellYB Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 (edited) I'm not familiar with that so don't know. But you mentioned maps, it has very good maps, quite a good section of maps. The full title is "The New Oxford annotated Bible, NRSV-with Apocrypha (en Ecumenical study bible). I gotmine when yaking Religious Studies courses at U of Houston, it was the one reccomended there. I really like it. annotations on each page include a lot of historical notes and language clarifications and cultural explanations. Also excellent section of scholarly essays on different things about the bible, canon, jewish vs interpretations,histroy of various signficant translations. more. Charts like chronological tables, parallel passages... My only 'complaint'...it IS quite a chunk! Even with very small print, which is a bit hard for me sometimes too,must have good glasses. My hands aren't large, and are arthritic, so i'd never carry it to try to keep up with a preacher's sermon or bs class at church,lol! I still carry my cheap old large print KJV for that! Dutch said he got a copy of thisone for Christmass.....Dutch, what do you think about it? Jenell Edited February 29, 2012 by JenellYB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Jenell I like it. There isn't room for everything in the footnotes so sometimes you get a brief account that makes you want to do more research. Many maps, timelines, and extensive articles about the assembling of the canon, Christian interpretation of the Hebrew Scripture, life under the Romans, etc verse 31: "Then he began to teach them that the Son of Man must undergo great suffering." and then in verse 34 "...take up their cross..." Remember it is a feminist interpretation that the footnote mentions. Dutch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JenellYB Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Ooookaaayyy......hmmm. Not sure how that about Jesus' suffering is applied to women or others should be made to suffer, but I'll think on that... On the 'take up your cross and follow...." maybe they got it from there? Some years ago,when I discovered the word 'cross' was translated from a word meaning 'upright'or an upright 'stake', and then that for 'crucified' actually translates something like "impaled on upright" or "upright stake", I had to wonder about the whole cross/crucifixion scenario and images associated with it. This particular reference Jesus made to 'taking up a cross" also hit a snag for me inthat He said it BEFORE He was crucified...at that point, a reference to a cross couldn't have had any meaning or relevance to those he said it to, connected to the supposed as yet not occured crucifixion. While he had hinted to them that he would be suffering something, even dying, He didn't say how it would happen, and they wouldn't have ever imagined it to be on a cross. now I may be wrong, but this is kinda what I get out of that...taking up our cross and follow me...to take up, impale oneself, upon uprighteousness. To use "impaled upon upright" as a metaphor. If you are metaphorically 'impaled upon up righteousness', just as would be literal physically impaled upon an upright stake, that 'upright' would always hold you up, supported, in weakness,through times of weakness, temptation to 'sin', failure to do right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 The cross was a common way of execution is Jesus' time. It had a reference but maybe this should be another topic. Dutch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JenellYB Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 The cross was a common way of execution is Jesus' time. It had a reference but maybe this should be another topic. Dutch Yeah....rabbit trail, lol! One more thing about the Oxford NRSV sutdy bible here, I don't know what I haven't areadly mentioned this as a reason I like and prefer it, becasue for me it has been a HUGE reason....and that is the "ecumenical" element, maybe what could be called an "academic" approach? That the notations, commentaries, essays, references, is as free as any I've seen of what is really doctrinal interpretations, 'apologetics' of existing doctrines and beliefs, particular sectarian positions. The material is more straight facts, information, less interpretation from a particular denominational pov. That's probably my most favorite thing about it, now that I think about it. Jenell Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coton Boy Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 The New Oxford Annoted Bible (NRSV) is excellent and probably the one I would recommend. I hadn't heard of the New Interpreters Study Bible but have added it to my list of "must get". The ESV is a conservative translation and the ESV Study Bible takes a conservative view in its notes. It is also Reformed which may or may not be to your liking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 I have a few differing versions. I mostly use the NIV but then again I do not believe the bible is scripture and I feel free to disagree with some of the concepts. For me real scripture is written on the heart of each person and not on the collected works of others written so many years ago. Sure there are lessons to be had there. Lessons are to help a person learn (IMO). Dogma and dictating to another that they should accept all that is written does not aid learning for oneself in my understanding. That said, I have purchased another bible as the access bible does look interesting to me. Thanks for the pointer. What sold it to me was the footnotes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.