The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha, Revised Standard Version

by Anonymous, Bruce M. Metzger (Editor), Roland Edmund Murphy (editor)

For decades, the New Oxford Annotated Bible has been the most widely used study Bible in schools, colleges, seminaries, and universities across the nation, meeting the needs of students of all faiths.
One of the most celebrated volumes in Oxford's renowned line of bibles, the RSV New Oxford Annotated Bible features an impressive array of supplementary materials to guide in readers' understanding of the scripture. Outstanding biblical scholarship, affordability, and thousands of satisfied readers have proven that the RSV NOAB is the best ecumenical resource available today.

Genres: Religion, Reference, Christianity, Theology, Faith, Nonfiction, Philosophy

1604 pages, Hardcover

Published May 19, 1977

About the author

Books can be attributed to "Anonymous" for several reasons:

* They are officially published under that name
* They are traditional stories not attributed to a specific author
* They are religious texts not generally attributed to a specific author

Books whose authorship is merely uncertain should be attributed to Unknown.

See also: Anonymous

Reviews

[Brett C · Rating 5 out of 5]

Disclaimer: This is NOT a review of the theological and spiritual views or findings from The Holy Bible. Reviewing the context of a religious book should be held in a different forum.

This is an official Revised Standard Version (RSV) of the Bible. From my research this is one step down from the KJV and flows a little easier in comparison. Each book has an introduction essay giving a brief overview of whats to come. Every page is lined with scholarly footnotes to further expand the above text. After the New Testament there is a How To Read The Bible With Understanding essay, Modern Approaches To Biblical Study, Characteristics Of Hebrew Poetry, Literary Forms In The Gospels, Survey of the Geography & Archaeology of The Biblical Lands, Measures & Weights table, Chronological Table of Rulers, and a history of English Versions of the Bible.

The Apocrypha (of The Old Testament) is expanded and includes 3rd Maccabees, 4th Maccabees, and Psalm 151. These are acknowledged texts in the various autocephalous Eastern Orthodox Churches.

The end of the book contains 14 different map templates ranging from Moses to after the time of Christ.

This study RSV Bible will stay with me and the KJV throughout the years to come. Thanks!

[Becky · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Revised Standard Version was a revision of the American Standard Version of 1901. The New Testament was released as early as 1946. The Old and New Testaments together were published in 1952. The translation went through several updates becoming finalized, I believe, in 1977.

According to Wikipedia, the VERY first copy of the RSV to come off the press was given to Harry S. Truman in September 1946. It was released to the general public a few days later.

Not every Christian embraced this new translation especially regarding the Old Testament. A strong reaction against this NEW translation in part led to a King-James-Only Movement. The fuss was over how Isaiah 7:14 was translated.
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Isaiah 7:14
Some pastors preached sermons and wrote pamphlets against this "horrid" "modern" translation. A few even made a spectacle of themselves by burning it.

The RSV has been the basis for two different revisions: the NRSV (1989) and the ESV (2001).

My thoughts: This is the fifth Bible I've read in 2017. I was not aware of the controversy before I started reading it! I didn't always love, love, love how they translated particular verses. But I wouldn't have been an angry protester, at least I don't think! But then again, I did get quite upset with the Common English Bible over how they translated a verse in Genesis, so maybe I would have been.

I CAN ONLY IMAGINE the fuss that would have resulted if the MESSAGE had been published in 1952. It would actually be a little fun to imagine the uproar.

[Lillie · Rating 4 out of 5]

4.5 stars.

I did not read the entire book for obvious reasons (it's massive), but I used a great deal of this book for a college course on New Testament texts. I really love that there's extensive annotations about translations, likely meanings, and references to other passages. I found it very convenient and easy to comprehend with all the footnotes.

Character-wise, I found Jesus to be kind of an asshole sometimes. He spends a lot of time in a few of the Synoptics telling people that he's tired of being bothered to do miracles. Like, sure, I guess even the Messiah gets tired sometimes, but jeez, man, these people have been through a lot recently. Have a heart.

I also wish there were more women in general. It's a little man-centric for me. But all of these issues I have are more with the source material than this specific edition of the text, which I say again, is quite good.

[geoffrey Paugher-Storree · Rating 2 out of 5]

This review is my own impression/enjoyment from reading the bible in general, not this particular translation or copy.

Old testament - Aside from familiar names and the most famous stories, we get a religion alien to our sensibilities today. It is a local religion, exclusively for the Jews of Israel with few exceptions. War and conquering are preferable to Proselytism, foreign marriage is a threat to faith, the law is cartoonishly strict and rarely upheld, divine justice is the theme of it all and Yahweh is there to administer justice or intervene when things get off track. Every good thing is an explicit reward for obedience/faith, every bad thing is a punishment for idolatry/sin.
As Paul later points out, this is all god's plan (to teach gentiles about Israel's disobedience and win back some jews when the gentiles earn the favor of god Romans 11:30). I can hardly see where there's room for free will under such pre-determined circumstances (Calvinists cheer?). As a matter of fact I found myself scratching my head at the notion of original sin entirely. God planted the snake, God created Satan, god knew Eve/humanity would eat from the tree of knowledge, it's all just a play and we are the puppets.

God is portrayed as an anthropomorphic god, who becomes angry with his own creation, who changes his mind, sometimes during debate with his messengers. He smites freely, hardens hearts, he is jealous and requires worship(for our own good perhaps?). His goodness is by definition, he is good because he must be, because he is the most powerful, the creator. There is no appeal to his authority beyond his great power.
The book of Job is certainly the most damning book in the entire bible by far. We have god engaging with the devil as a king does with an advisor in a heavenly court. Even worse, he takes up a bet where he will senselessly punish one of his most pious subjects to prove a point to...Satan himself. All of this can be waived as illustration, metaphor, allegory etc. What really bothers me is that we are basically told that divine justice is not to be relied on, or even that it is a faulty concept. This is completely at odds with the teachings of the old testament where Israel is collectively punished or rewarded BECAUSE of their behavior/faith. Now I'm sure there are some clever explanations to make this work, but every book after this, when a prayer to kill an enemy army was granted, when the psalms cried for Israel to conquer enemies, when the prophet told people they would be killed if they kept worshipping statues...and are, I rolled my eyes and thought about Job. Sure he was rewarded later, but he failed the test. The heretic was rewarded, the questioner was redeemed, the man cursing god won favor over the faithful idiot interlocuter friends who insisted upon god's justice and Job's necessary great sins. Baffling how this even made it into the scriptures. Is god even good? Just?

New Testament - Finally the great news is here! Enough of Israel and it's dysfunction here is the real meat and potatoes! The gospels felt a bit underwhelming and short for being the most powerful stories in Christendom. Some noticeable discrepancies are the genealogy, the stories of Mary and Joseph fleeing to Egypt and Judas killing himself. Jesus is performing various miracles for most of the narrative and doesn't draw attention to himself when possible. He is largely targeting other Jews and trying to steer them closer to the spirit of the laws and away from the legalistic attitude prevalent at the time.

The biggest hangup for me here is the celebration of faith without evidence (first by Jesus and then Paul and the apostles), perhaps even worse is the frequently repeated promise by Jesus of reward for faith. It comes across as a bribe or transactional. If you want to be healed you must believe and BAM, leprosy gone. This very notion is upended in my opinion by the fact that Jesus' miracles take up so much focus. Without his miracles he would never have gained a following and thus his message would go nowhere. His followers NEEDED miracles to believe, His prophets NEEDED to perform miracles and predict correctly, we still NEED evidence, and yet we are given nothing (false religions have scripture too). Many books warn us of false prophets and false teachers and yet belief without evidence leads you precisely in the hands of charlatans and scammers who need not give any proof. Faith without evidence is the real sin, and these teachings leave us nearly defenseless.

Christianity comes alive mainly through Paul. Here is the kind, beautiful, Christianity familiar with us (Jesus too, but only through sayings) He lays it out in a methodical way and answers a lot of the big questions that come about. Why mislead Jews with only law originally? Why must Jesus sacrifice himself? Paul dominates in influence and overshadows the original apostles. What's odd is that he never even met Jesus and yet he is the dominant apostle. Paul is clearly a genius and is able to effortlessly blend together Jewish religion and Greek philosophy into this clean package that becomes a best seller. I don't mean to cheapen Christianity with this phrasing, Paul admits to appealing to everyone on purpose in order to spread the word! His emphasis on faith also embodies this appeal to gentiles, making them worthy without ritual and birthright. James pushes back with one of my favorite lines from James 2:19 "You believe that god is one; you do well. Even the demons believe- and shudder." I have the same issue with Paul regarding his emphasis on faith, especially without evidence. I also dislike his attitude towards wisdom which he claims Greeks pursue in folly and of evidence which he says Jews demand in the form of miracles. In his worldview reading the pagan philosophers is probably useless, and yet now Aristotle is a great pillar of reason compatible with faith (at least among Catholics and Muslims).

A Christian would point to my shallow reading of the bible and I can't disagree. I struggled to finish, but got through it. I read with a hardened heart, perhaps I'm not chosen by god. Although I have to say, A large fire in the woods did break out directly behind my house during the first week of reading so I am a little bit more superstitious now and was genuinely scared of god for a few days.

[Stephen · Rating 5 out of 5]

There are two excellent English translations of the Bible, each representing one of the two main strands of documentary history. One is The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha, Revised Standard Version (1977). It is the clearest and most comprehensive revision of the King James Version, which was compiled and translated from all sources available in 1611. The other is a 2003 Baronius edition of the 1899 Gibbons edition based on the 1749-1752 Challoner revision of the 1610 Douay-Rheims Bible, an English translation of the Latin Vulgate, itself compiled and translated c.400 AD from Greek and Hebrew sources. Taken together in terms of scholarship, legibility and style, these two books encompass the best representation of the Bible in the English language.

[Erik Graff · Rating 5 out of 5]

This appears to be the edition used in seminary and which, since it was the preferred text for all college and graduate coursework on the bible, I've read almost completely. Since it intentionally tries to stay as close to the text of the King James Bible (the "Authorized Version", in the sense of being composed by the royal mandate of James I) and since that edition is the one most familiar to English speakers from its long literary predominance, the Oxford is, in this sense, the most "biblical" in feel--to Protestants at least.

The superiority of the "expanded edition" is that it is the only English bible which contains the complete canons of all denominations of the people of "the Book." Otherwise, sadly, the notes in The New Jerusalem Bible, its "Study Edition" are superior.

[Andrew Corrie · Rating 5 out of 5]

A superb Bible for study, reading aloud, or plain simple enjoyment of the various parts of the story. RSV is an important translation which sought to stand in the lineage going back to Tyndale.

[John Engelman · Rating 4 out of 5]

I would like to give "The New Oxford Annotated Bible With the Apocrypha, of the Revised Standard Version, study bible, five stars, but I have a few criticisms.
"
The first criticism I direct toward several other study bibles as well: the footnotes are too extensive. If one ignores the footnotes, one will miss important information. If one reads from the text to the footnotes and back again, that can be distracting. I read the footnotes first, then the text. I think the footnotes should be restricted to a minimum, and that most of the information in the footnotes should be placed in a more extensive introduction in the beginning of each book.

Sub titles within each book would also be helpful. Several study bibles have these.

The Old Testament of the Revised Standard Version has created controversy by translating Isaiah 7:14 as “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold a young woman shall conceive and bear a son and shall call his name Immanuel.

The King James Version of the Bible translates this verse as, “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son and shall call his name Immanuel.”

The Hebrew word that is translated as “young women,” or “virgin,” is “almah.” A Hebrew word that more specifically means virgin is “bethulah.” In the seven times almah appears in the Old Testament it always means a young woman, and it never refers to a young woman who is obviously not a virgin. In Genesis 24:43 Rebekah, who later on marries Isaac, is referred to as an almah. In Genesis 24:16 Rebekah is referred to as a bethulah. I suspect that to the Old Testament Israelites “almah” was similar to the English word “maiden.” “Maiden” usually implies virginity without always asserting it.

During the third century BC the Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek. This translation is called the Septuagint. The Israelite translator of Isaiah 7:14 was fluent in Hebrew and Greek. He translated almah as “parthenos,” because that was how he perceived of the meaning in the Hebrew. Parthenos is a Greek word that certainly does mean virgin.

This is important to Christianity, because Matthew uses the Septuagint when quoting the Old Testament. Matthew saw Isaiah 7:14 as a prediction for the virgin birth of Jesus. I believe that a Christian translation of the Bible should use the word “virgin” in Isaiah 7:14, and that a Christian study bible should explain the ambiguities between the meaning of almah, bethulah, parthenos, and virgin.

My other criticisms are minor. The print used in the footnotes, the introductions, and essays is smaller than the print used in the text, and difficult for me to read. The Apocrypha is placed after the New Testament. The Apocrypha was written after the last book in the Hebrew Bible was written, but before the first book in the New Testament was written. It consists of books found in the Septuagint, but not in the Hebrew Bible. The Septuagint includes a concept not fully developed in the Old Testament, and more fully developed in the New Testament. That is the doctrine of posthumus rewards and punishments for righteousness and sin. By reading the Apocrypha one gains a better understanding of the New Testament. The natural position of the Apocrypha is between the Old Testament and the New Testament.

I would like to give this study bible four and a half stars. The hardback binding is an attractive shade of red. It held up well through a complete reading. I own leather bound bibles that showed evidence of use after one reading.

[Rex Brampton]

OK, so I only read the New Testament of this having read the Old in the Jewish Study Bible.
I found the analysis in this not to be as in depth as the other. There are lots of cross references and I thought a lot of things that needed to be explained weren't whereas other items that were pretty obvious rated a footnote.
What eventually got my goat was a choice by the editors of the translation (rather than the editors of the commentary) to attempt to be gender inclusive. So whenever the text referred to "brothers" they would insert "brothers and sisters" which then necessitated a footnote to explain that the original Greek said only "brothers".
I have no objection to gender inclusive language, but it seems pointless to bowlderise "the Word of God" to accommodate modern notions of what we think they meant or ought to have said.
Even more pointless considering how outrageously misogynistic Paul is in other places.

[Benjamin Dean · Rating 4 out of 5]

to be clear, i’m not “rating the bible” , but rather the edition. it’s pretty darn good as a scholarly source. the annotations are useful and generally
relevant. they can be terse at times, but then, there is a lot of text to annotate.

[Leonardo]

Esta es la versión que usan en: https://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studie...

[Griffin Michel · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good story and lessons overall but kind of dense

[James · Rating 5 out of 5]

Outstanding reference.

[Jacob Aitken · Rating 3 out of 5]

bought this Bible for a New Testament Intro Class. The translation is more beautiful than the NIV but more readable than the NASB. Also, it has not bowed to political correctness to the same degree the NRSV has. It does not matter how egalitarian one is, gender-inclusiveness is not an attractive read.



Particularly helpful (or harmful) are the book introductions. Each introduction reads like a broken record: we don't know who wrote this book and they obviously wrote it a lot later than the Church says they wrote it. If I tried to pull one of these stunts in scholarship I would have been called out. How come they get to get away with it?



Another interesting aspect is the articles at the end, "How to read the Scriptures with understanding." This is without doubt the most beautiful essay on Bible Reading. However, these men openly doubt the historicity of the sacred text. Whether they are right or wrong, they very eagerly embrace higher critical views that can be dangerous if they are abused. And they never once critically question their own views.



Another problem with the book is that much of the information is dated. The Documentary Hypothesis was once popular to academicians, now archeology is beginning to shed some uncomfortable light on it. They place more weight on that theory than necessary. other than that, a great read.



Probably my favorite translation. The study notes are weak. Even when not blatantly heretical, they aren't helpful. They read more like Junion High annotations to Hamlet.

[Jason Mather · Rating 5 out of 5]

Glad I read it. It wasn’t easy.

5 star rating is mainly for the translation, extensive scholarly notes, and contextual material that helped me get through it with at least some understanding. Otherwise, I’m not sure how you assign stars to the Bible itself. It is what it is.

When it was all said and done, Jesus accounted for a relatively small part of the Bible. I was pretty disappointed that we don’t get more of Jesus in the Bible.

Mary was almost an afterthought, yet she is so central to so many Christian sects.

It’s not clear from the Bible (to me) that you go to heaven or hell when you die. Sheol is the most likely Biblical destination for all dead, good or bad.

No talk of abortion or birth control. Life begins at first breath. That’s clear. Killing pregnant mothers was an accepted and routine war practice for every warring group in the Old Testament.

Lots of what we consider Christianity is church doctrine, not Biblical.

Paul accounted for a lot of the NT. He struck me as a well-intentioned diva. But his words and letters are not divine (no matter what Paul may think).

The Old Testament story starts to go off the rails after the second book (Exodus). It’s pretty coherent until then.

Lots of classical Greek influence in the OT books of wisdom.

If you want to read the essential Bible books, I’d go with Genesis, Exodus, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and maybe Acts. Ruth is a really good one too- blissfully short, and a nice story of family and community.

[Tom Willis · Rating 3 out of 5]

The RSV is a great Scripture translation.

The commentary in this I do not care for. The introductions before each book are minimal. As an "ecumenical" study Bible, there is nothing to be found about Christian interpretations of Old Testament passages, which I think is relevant to the Scripture student regardless of his own beliefs. I have not spent time with some of the longer essays found in the Bible, such as "How to Read the Bible with Understanding," "Modern Approaches to Biblical Study," "Characteristics of Hebrew Poetry," and "Literary Forms in the Gospels".

I am also critical of the decision to shove the "deuterocanonical" or "apocryphal" books into an appendix-esque section following the New Testament, along with the Greek of Esther and Daniel found only in the Septuagint. These, at least, are supposed to be read within the context of their books, so separating them out is a very strange choice.

[alli · Rating 4 out of 5]

it was a really good exercise for me to read this, and this is a great edition with lots of helpful notes and sources. also shoutout to the person that wrote all over only the gospel of luke :)

[Fred Rose · Rating 5 out of 5]

I love this particular Bible due to the scholarship used by the editors who remain faithful to the original Hebrew and Greek. There are great chapters introducing the Pentatuech, Old Testament and the New Testament in addition to great historical backgrounds to each book of the Bible. Including the Apopcryphya is a great feature for anyone who is very interested in sacred texts that are inspirational but not necessarily canonical.

[Rachel Tobias · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read the entire New Testament for a class I took this semester. The introductions to each section are a great addition, especially when looking at this book is a literary context.

[else fine · Rating 4 out of 5]

I know it may seem odd to include the Bible here. I think a lot of people don't see it as something to read for pleasure. In college, I was surprised by how many of my classmates had never read it - and in consequence, missed a lot of meaning in the books we were reading. Though I also have a old leather King James version, I like this edition, particularly for the Apocrypha and the notes.

[Nick · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very nice edition with helpful notes. It does, as many do these days, err in the area of leaning too heavily on an austere almost secularist historical-critical approach. This misses the point for which most Bible readers turn to notes, to understand their faith better. Not to understand that they are a bunch of closeted schizophrenics. Hopefully future editions will correct this problem.

[Kenneth · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read the Revised Standard Version of the Bible over a period of years, a few books at a time. The Bible is a foundational text of Christianity and of Western Civilization and I really believe nobody in the West can be truly educated who does not know something of the sacred scriptures. This is regardless of whether one is a believer or not (although, full disclosure, I am).

[Jen Marie · Rating 5 out of 5]

Definitely have to thank my professor for my understanding and appreciation of this book. In one semester of Bible as Lit I learned more about the Bible than I did in 4 years of catholic school. I loved the notes at the bottom of the pages. Great, easy to read version.

[powei · Rating 5 out of 5]

excellent scholarship from the liberal side. very good information; makes me understand where i stand.

[Steve · Rating 3 out of 5]

As advertised, full of holes.

[Reuel · Rating 2 out of 5]

Read for a Bible as Literature class taught by David Hadas. Great class.

[Gracielou · Rating 5 out of 5]

Gotta love the academic footnotes and prefaces.

[Leah]

This is the version for me.

[Robin Tell-Drake]

Not that I expect to finish it any time soon.

I do wish they'd list the author as "God et al" or something like that. But, alas, no.

[Rick Boyer · Rating 5 out of 5]

It's a good book!