#1 in Christian bibles
Use arrows to jump to the previous/next product

Reddit mentions of The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha: New Revised Standard Version

Sentiment score: 48
Reddit mentions: 80

We found 80 Reddit mentions of The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha: New Revised Standard Version. Here are the top ones.

The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha: New Revised Standard Version
Buying options
View on Amazon.com
or
    Features:
  • Softcover
Specs:
Height6.6 Inches
Length9.1 Inches
Number of items1
Weight3.2628414776 Pounds
Width1.6 Inches

idea-bulb Interested in what Redditors like? Check out our Shuffle feature

Shuffle: random products popular on Reddit

Found 80 comments on The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha: New Revised Standard Version:

u/VermeersHat · 75 pointsr/AskHistorians

There's a staggering amount of material on this. The biblical scholars I know generally prefer the New Revised Standard Version translation. The New Oxford Annotated Bible is a good, solid annotated version. The Harper Collins Study Bible is good as well. It's often assigned in courses -- I believe because it's sometimes a bit cheaper.

The problem is that neither book is able to give you a comprehensive picture of biblical scholarship. If they tried, the books would be too heavy to lift. For that, I like the Anchor Bible Dictionary. It's huge -- and in fact Anchor has put out much more than just the dictionary -- but it has everything you need to know.

The best strategy would probably be to use the Anchor books as a reference to look up intriguing passages from the original text. Plenty of scholars -- like Bart Ehrman -- also publish survey texts that introduce the practice of biblical analysis and give an overview of the bible as a whole.

u/SunAtEight · 39 pointsr/atheism

Get yourself an annotated New Revised Standard Version. It includes alternative translations and copious footnotes from an academic source-critical perspective, along with very informative essays and maps at the back.

Note: I have the Oxford Augmented Third Edition. Looking at the reviews, make sure you get the version you want. I think I might have linked the paperback edition lacking the concordance ("College Edition"). A concordance is useful, but you also probably don't want something this big in paperback, especially since the price isn't that different.

u/MrTimscampi · 20 pointsr/SzechuanSauceSeekers

Let's at least link to a well translated version of the book, shall we ?

Here's the New American Standard Bible

Note: I'm atheist, but I've been doing some research about bible translations out of an interest to read the thing at least once and pretty much everybody says the New American Standard Bible is the best translation available in English. It's translated from the oldest versions of the texts available, has translation notes and removes some passages added by the King James version.

Edit:
Some of the conversations that resulted from this post pushed me to research a bit more. In the end, for my reading of the Bible, I ended up going with The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha. It features a more neutral translation and is generally the standard for academic studies of the Bible. It uses the NRSV translation, which you can read here.

It has been brought to my attention that, while it features a more than correct translation, the NASB is a bit more geared towards Protestants. As my main goal for researching the various Bible translations was finding a good, neutral Bible to read as an atheist, I decided to further my research a bit and found out about the NRSV (New Revised Standard Version), which is approved by pretty much everybody but the most conservative sub-branches. The specific version I used mentioned above contains commentary from Catholics, Protestants, Jews and Atheists, so I feel that it represents as wide of a belief spectrum as possible and satisfies my objective better. It is also the de facto bible used for academic studies and research.
End of edit

u/snivelsadbits · 16 pointsr/dankchristianmemes

Imo, NIV cuts out a lot of rather inconvenient language that doesn't jive with modern Christianity and King James uses overly grand language for the sake of majestic effect. While there's nothing inherently wrong with either one, I prefer a translation that aims to have the most historically accurate reading. I use NRSV because it's the most academically focused translation but uses standard English and notates whenever important words have debated meanings or when names have important connotations (e.g. the roots of Elohim or YHWH) or there's notable shifts in narrative, contradictory messages, etc. My copy also has accessible scholarly essays giving historical context and extensive footnotes focusing on how readers contemporaneous to the books' writing would have interpreted the material. Here's an amazon link for 14 dollars :)

https://www.amazon.com/New-Oxford-Annotated-Bible-Apocrypha/dp/0195289609/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1525813943&sr=8-2&keywords=oxford+annotated+nrsv

u/Kai_Daigoji · 16 pointsr/TrueAtheism

The New Oxford Annotated Bible is a great place to start if you really want to dig in academically.

u/LogiWan · 12 pointsr/AcademicBiblical

Biblical Studies major here.

The consensus I have gathered from my B.S. professors is that the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) is a relatively accurate English translation backed by a lot of scholarship. In my classes (at Azusa Pacific University) we always use the New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha, which uses the NRSV translation and is full of relevant scholarly annotations, introductions, and brief commentaries. I consider it indispensable. You can check it out here.

I've heard critiques that the NRSV can be biased toward "liberal/progressive" scholarship and translation. The ESV is also considered accurate, but has a more "conservative" bias, if that helps. Neither the KJV or the NIV are usually thought to be accurate, as both are dynamic equivalent translations (KJV is meant to sound pretty, and also has dogmatic translator's bias, and the NIV is meant to be relevant and easy to read for contemporary Christians. Neither is foremost striving for accuracy, which would be more of a direct equivalent translation approach).

TL;DR: The New Oxford Annotated Bible and New Revised Standard Version in general are relatively trustworthy and accurate the original texts. If you are looking for precise translation, NIV and KJV are not the best.

u/Ducessa · 12 pointsr/Christianity

The Oxford Annotated Bible! Linkie.

"The premier study Bible used by scholars, pastors, undergraduate and graduate students, The New Oxford Annotated Bible offers a vast range of information, including extensive notes by experts in their fields; in-text maps, charts, and diagrams; supplementary essays on translation, biblical interpretation, cultural and historical background, and other general topics."

$32.99, 2416 pages.

Authors:

  • Michael Coogan is Professor of Religious Studies at Stonehill College and Director of Publications for the Harvard Semitic Museum. He has also taught at Harvard University, Boston College, Wellesley College, Fordham University, and the University of Waterloo (Ontario), and has participated in and directed archaeological excavations in Israel, Jordan, Cyprus, and Egypt. He is the author of Old Testament text books and The Old Testament VSI.

  • Marc Z. Brettler is Dora Golding Professor of Biblical Studies and chair of the Department of Near Eastern and Judaic Studies, Brandeis University.

  • Carol Newsom is Charles Howard Candler Professor of Old Testament, Candler School of Theology, Emory University.

  • Pheme Perkins is Professor of Theology at Boston College.

    Edit: Downvotes, nice. :)
u/Jestersage · 11 pointsr/Christianity

NOAB. Pretty Academic, and contain the deuterocanon that Catholic and Orthodox use too.

u/ungroundedearth · 9 pointsr/RadicalChristianity

I would get a good academic study bible that goes into depth about the authorship of each book as well as the socio-historical context of the whole thing. I have the New Oxford Annotated edition and it's fantastic. Putting it in context and breaking away from the idea that Moses wrote the Pentateuch or that Paul wrote some of the Epistles helped me break away from incorrect reductive fundamentalist understandings of the bible.

u/bobo_brizinski · 8 pointsr/TrueChristian

So the ESV and the ESV Study Bible are getting tons of recommendations so I want to put a spotlight on excellent material that isn't as well known. I really like:

  • The Access Bible (NRSV) - scholarly and designed for beginners, very underrated in my opinion

  • The English Bible (KJV): Norton Critical Edition - scholarly, literary, superb footnotes and annotations, two volumes for the Old Testament and New Testament/Apocrypha. What I LOVE about this study Bible is how it contains a large appendix of Biblical interpretation spanning multiple centuries.

  • The New Oxford Annotated Bible (NRSV) - scholarly, very popular in seminaries and colleges, designed for more advanced students

  • The New Collegeville Bible Commentary (NRSV; Old and New Testaments in separate volumes) - scholarly, written by Roman Catholics but follows mainstream scholarship and good for non-Catholic students

  • The Life With God Bible (NRSV) - aka "the Renovare Spiritual Formation Bible", this is a devotional study Bible edited by many great evangelical writers like Dallas Willard and Richard Foster. It focuses on spiritual disciplines.

u/themsc190 · 8 pointsr/GayChristians

Welcome! We’re glad you’re here as well. It’s a great community, and I’ve grown so much from it. And I’m so glad folks in your new church are so friendly!

In terms of resources, I’d definitely encourage you to check out the Resources page over in /r/OpenChristian. Reading the Bible is tough, but there are ways to make it a little easier. I’d recommend an academic study Bible, like the Harper Collins Study Bible or the Oxford Annotated Study Bible, which have notes to contextualize and explain confusing concepts. (Be wary of some study bibles, because lots of them just promote fundamentalism under the guise of scholarship.) My suggestion on where is start is the Gospel of Mark, which is the oldest story of Jesus that we have in the Bible, and it is short, just about the length of a short story. If you try to read from front to back, it’s easy to get bored or lose track. Most Bible reading plans actually recommend jumping around!

I’ll highlight a couple resources from that list that you might like. If you’re interested in queer readings of the Bible, QueerTheology.com has a weekly podcast that’s just like 7 minutes long, which is a good place to get introduced to some techniques for reading the Bible as an LGBTQ person.

Two books that might interest you are Jennifer Knapp’s Facing the Music and Vicky Beeching’s Undivided, which are memoirs from lesbian Christians who were in the Christian music scene and subsequently came out.

If you have any more questions or want any more recommendations, feel free to ask or PM me! Peace!

u/appleciders · 8 pointsr/AcademicBiblical

No. The New Revised Standard Version is the most common translation used in academic formats that prohibit working in the original language (e.g. undergraduate students who do not speak Greek or Hebrew). I'd recommend this version, which has excellent annotations and introductory essays about each book.

"Most literal" isn't necessarily useful in understanding the texts. Translating a saying or phrase too literally can result in mangling a euphemism, metaphor, or other non-literal saying. We speak and write non-literally in our everyday lives; it's a major part of language to understand which phrases are to be taken literally and which aren't. The New Oxford, which I recommended above, will note when the original text is using metaphorical language and give you a scholar's opinion of how to understand it as well as the actual words in question. It also give variant readings, which is hugely important in NT studies because we have many variant wordings in the manuscripts that have come down to us and sometimes those readings have significantly different meanings.

u/greym84 · 7 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

Here is more info on the King James Version (KJV) compared to other translations.

On the KJV Today

Due to archaeological discoveries (e.g. Qumran), improvements in linguistics, and other things we have better translations. It's not uncommon for Christians to believe that the Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant, but some fundamentalists believe that the King James is the only divinely inspired translation (note, even the KJV has undergone updates and revision).

Why are there different translations?

While all translators have some bias, most are very deliberately objective. The variance in translation usually comes in style: Accuracy vs. readability.

How are they different?

BibleGateway is handy for comparing translations. Here's a familiar passage in several translations. The first translation is the KJV (revised from the original 1611, but not the most recent New King James). The second is the New American Standard Bible (NASB), which is the most literal and accurate English translation. It's modern English, but wordy. The third is the New Living Translation (NLT), designed to be easier to read.

Which translation should I use?

There is no best translation. There are solid modern translations that try to combine the accuracy of the NASB and ease of the NLT. The New International Version (NIV, 2011 update preferred) is the most popular translation, with the English Standard Version (ESV) probably being the best (I recommend the ESV as the go-to translation).

However, if you were going to own one Bible for academic study, I'd seek out a cheap used copy of the New Oxford Annotated Bible (the translation is a kin of the ESV). If you want to just read it, I recommend The Books of the Bible which is in a pleasant single column format, uncluttered by footnotes, verse numbers, etc.

u/beatle42 · 7 pointsr/atheism

I've used the oxford annotated bible and think it does a pretty good job of matching your criteria (I actually have a slightly earlier edition to the one I linked to).

u/uncovered-history · 6 pointsr/Christianity

Not a Christian, but I own a New Revised Standard edition that I bought during undergrad since I was studying the New Testament and it’s regarded as the best translation by pretty much every historian I had read.

Edit: this precise one to be exact. Super helpful for anyone wanting to take more of a historical rather than theological approach to the Bible.

u/EACCES · 6 pointsr/Christianity

NOAB NRSV is probably what you want - has notes on translation throughout the text, academic commentary, etc.

u/BrotherGA2 · 6 pointsr/Christianity

These two are probably the most respected in academia. If you want to get just one, I'd go with the NRSV for both Jewish Bible and New Testament.

Just the TANAKH (Old Testament): The Jewish Study Bible: Featuring The Jewish Publication Society TANAKH Translation

TANAKH and New Testament (The Christian Bible): The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha: New Revised Standard Version

u/pedanticnerd · 5 pointsr/booksuggestions

The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha is the gold standard scholarly version of the book. It is widely read in non-religious universities as well as in seminaries and by interested autodidacts. The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) translation was done by an editorial board including the world's foremost biblical scholars, and is widely considered the most accurate translation you can find without relying on being able to read Hebrew and Greek. The maps, notes, and annotations in this text are extensive and interesting.

American Evangelicals mostly reject the NRSV (and mainstream academic study of the bible in general), which is one reason why the older version of the translation (NIV) is the most common translation around. The really hardcore conservative Protestants rely on the KJV (or occasionally the NKJV), and consider even the NIV to be untrustworthy.

Also, if you are interested in the Jewish or Catholic versions of the bible, I can recommend some of those.

u/captainhaddock · 5 pointsr/TrueAtheism

I highly recommend the New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha. The translation used is the New Revised Standard Version, which is the standard in academic settings and lacking in denominational bias. It includes all the books used by Catholics and most branches of Eastern Orthodoxy. It has scholarly notes and introductions to each book. It is not a typical Evangelical Bible that pretends all the books were written by the traditional authors.

u/TheMainEvant · 5 pointsr/AcademicBiblical

Many academic institutions standardly use the the New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha--containing scholarly annotations, introductions, and commentaries, it is an excellent option.

u/doofgeek401 · 5 pointsr/AcademicBiblical

That depends on what you are academically studying.

If you are studying the text, the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) holds close to the original Greek New Testament.

The standard English translation used for academic study is the NRSV, in particular, the Oxford Annotated Bible and Harper Collins is widely used in major universities. It has the great advantage of being ecumenical, translated by people with a wide variety of theological viewpoints, rather than sectarian translations like the New World or NIV Bibles; and of being modern and thus based on a pretty up-to-date set of manuscript traditions, where the KJV (for example) suffers simply because the translators had less to go on.

Also, check out:

The Jewish Study Bible

Jewish Annotated New Testament

I would recommend, however, that if you want to academically study the Bible, you need a Greek New Testament and a Hebrew Old Testament, a Greek Lexicon and Grammar, a Hebrew Lexicon and Grammar, and several years of study.

subreddit posts on Bible versions/ translations:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/b0d0ac/probably_ask_before_but_what_is_the_best_version/

https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/3vtige/which_translation_should_i_read_for_cultural_and/

https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/8ovjr7/which_translations_of_the_bible_are_considered_to/

List of essential commentaries for each book of the Hebrew Bible:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/9p7ois/what_are_some_of_the_more_academic_bible/

https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/8myk8y/the_most_essential_commentary_for_each_book_of/

approachable resources for lay people on biblical scholarship and reading Recommendations for newbies:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/d21gz4/is_there_an_academic_bible_equivalent_of_the_book/

https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/c1c4ll/reading_recommendations_for_newbies_to_gospel/

u/BoboBrizinski · 5 pointsr/Christianity

I dislike the ESV Study Bible - it obscures or dismisses the scholarly consensus on many books, which is academically dishonest.

I highly recommend the Access Bible. Its notes represent mainstream biblical scholarship. It uses the NRSV, which is a cousin of the ESV and is actually easier to read in my opinion (you can compare them on BibleGateway.com - the NRSV and the ESV are both revisions of the RSV.)

I would also recommend the New Oxford Annotated Bible.. It's a little more technical and meaty than the Access Bible. It also uses the NRSV. More importantly, its notes are excellent and represent mainstream biblical scholarship. It comes in an older edition (with shorter, more conservative notes) using the RSV (which is the basis for the ESV and very similar to it.)

Another study Bible I like is the Oxford Study Bible. This uses the REB (Revised English Bible) - this is a British translation that is not related to the RSV/NRSV/ESV family. It's a fresh, creative and easy to read translation that nicely complements the formal translations.

Finally, there is the Norton Critical Edition of the English Bible, KJV. It's very unique for a study Bible, because it focuses on how the KJV influenced English literature. Although the KJV is hard to read, the notes clarify some of the obscure English language.

So... I guess the lesson is that there are a lot of choices out there. But since you're a beginner, I'd highly recommend the Access Bible before you explore the other stuff.

u/ThaneToblerone · 5 pointsr/Christianity

Given that English was still in its infancy during the life of Muhammad I don't think you'll be able to find an English translation from before Islam came around.

If you want to get at Scripture from a solidly academic perspective I'd advise you to pick up a New Oxford Annotated Bible. It has very good, scholarly footnotes and continues to be widely used throughout major seminaries and universities as the gold standard for scholastic study.

u/10thPlanet · 5 pointsr/TrueAtheism

The Oxford Annotated Bible is the standard "scholarly" study Bible, I believe.

u/moootPoint · 5 pointsr/AcademicBiblical

In regards to understanding the psychological impetus driving the mythic themes/archetypes of the early Levant cultures I found the work of Joseph Campbell to be an excellent starting point.

The Oxford Annotated Bible is another book i've found useful for its addition of supplementary historical context.

u/GabeThomas22 · 4 pointsr/ChristianOccultism

The NOAB is the definitive bible for in depth study IMO.

u/HarryHeine · 4 pointsr/Christianity

Our Bibles today are far better than the Bibles of Constantine.

You want one that has the Deuterocanon (or Apocrypha) in it. Like the original King James did. :)

This should be a fine choice for the Catholic 73 book version: https://www.amazon.com/New-Oxford-Annotated-Bible-Apocrypha/dp/0195289609

If you want some of the other Orthodox canons with >73 books you'll need to look for them more specifically.

u/amertune · 4 pointsr/latterdaysaints

Good study bibles: The New Oxford Annotated Study Bible or The HarperCollins Study Bible.

Another good one for great insights into the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament): Jewish Study Bible

u/mistiklest · 3 pointsr/Christianity

New Oxford Annotated NRSV with Apocrypha. It has all of the Greek, Slavonic, and Latin canons, and thereby the Protestant canon, and it's a very well respected academic translation.

The psalms are pretty ugly, though.

u/irl_lurker · 3 pointsr/rpg

This is the version that I'd use. Read the essays before the books--they and the annotations at the bottom make some good clarifications and give a lot of cultural context you probably wouldn't be aware of.

u/christiankool · 3 pointsr/DebateReligion

>See the issue with that is that if you believe the Bible is supposed to be "God's word" then why did God let it become so misinterpreted?

The Bible is not God's Word, Jesus is ( John 1 for an example). The Bible is a library/collections of different types of literature (i.e. poems, myths, histories, fictional accounts [ex. Jonah], letters, apocalyptic texts, etc.

So, why do Christians revere the texts found within and how did the texts get chosen anyway? Well, that's a long story do we're going to have to go general.

The Old Testament books were chosen on what Judaism was using around 1 CE, the Septuagint (Greek). In fact, it's thought the Jewish canon was chosen in reaction to Christianity and only had what is known as the Hebrew Bible. For some reason, Protestants kicked the extra texts found in the Septuagint to a different location in the bible and called it "Apocrypha". It was still on there until "recently" when they wanted to save printing costs. For instance, Lutherans, Anglicans, etc. still have readings from the Deutrocannon.

The New Testament is different. In the West, there was no "set canon" until the Reformation and Council of Trent. In fact, Luther wanted to kick out James (because he thought it was contrary to "faith alone) and Revelation. Though he kept Revelation because he could use it against Rome.

The New Testament canon was formed before they were set, however. (I believe the earliest canon was Marcion and then the earliest that resembles the current one was Augustine?) The letters of Paul were being circulated throughout the area. The Gospels were written as "remembered history" as well as interpreting Jesus through the Septuagint. With this in mind, the church chose the texts based on the author of the text (Apostles), how common they were found throughout all the churches, how "catholic"/"orthodox" they were, etc. And the Church is thought to have been guided by the Spirit in these matters.

Now the nature of scripture is that it's both human and divine. Humans wrote the scriptures in historical contexts by certain literary means. So, of course you're going to get contradictions on the surface level of reading. There's 4 different gospels telling the story of Jesus in at least 4 different ways! (But that's why you have to know they're written as "remembered history" and interpretations.) That doesn't diminish the "authorship"/inspiration of God. That is only found in the proper context: liturgy and prayer. As Robert Sokolowski wrote:


>The role of the church as the speaker of the scriptures is brought out when she presents the scriptures as the word of God, but this role is even more vividly performed when the church reads the biblical passages in her liturgy and when she incorporates parts of the scriptures in her teachings and prayers and makes it possible for us to think and to pray in the same manner. We take fragments from the scriptures and compose our prayers and thoughts from them. The church’s use of scripture in her teaching and actions makes possible for us a way of life that is coherent because reconciled with God. It is in such situations of prayerful reading, whether in the church’s liturgy and teaching or in the private prayer of believers, that the scriptures most fully come to life. It is there that they serve, not as an object of our curiosity, but as the words through which God speaks to us and we to God. At this point the primary author of the scriptures, God himself, comes to the fore and acts as author, as the one who authorizes and speaks. At this point the human authors, who have finished their work, recede into the background. - Phenomenologies of Scripture (God's Word and Human Speech)

I don't agree with him on everything (I take a more Eastern view of Holy Tradition), but it's a start.

>The lake of fire.... English King James Version... but there are other reference through the Bible to the furnace and such.

Firstly, the KJV is outdated on scholarship. If you want a universally accepted translation, used in both Secular and Religious schools, I'd suggest the NRSV. I'd also suggest getting a New Oxford Study Annotated Bible or HarperCollins Study Bible. Just get away from the KJV.

I'm pretty sure I covered the gauntlet with my previous post. I didn't realize you wanted me to go super specific. But, just in case, Jesus speaks in parables a lot.

>I don't really know what you're asking by rejecting God and rejecting idea of God, sounds like one and the same if you're only talking about abrahamic religion.

I'll provide an analogy to point you in the right direction. It is not meant as a literal 1-to-1 comparison. Say that I met your mother. I noticed she was yelling at the cashier at the grocery store. She tried stealing a lighter while the cashier was grabbing her cigarettes. He noticed that. She kept denying it and denying until she left cursing out the cashier.

To you, your mom doesn't even smoke and is as calm as Snoop with a doobie. Why would she ever be so mean?

We meet up and start talking about your mom. You bring up how wonderful she is and I start to get freaked out. I say, "That is not your mom. Your mom is rude. You must be talking about another lady. Because if that's the case, then your mom doesn't exist or was replaced." I'm not actually denying that your mom exists, only your idea of mom.

>As for getting to hell God sends you there, I was raised Baptist and the interpretation I was taught was about believing in Jesus, if you believed in Jesus you went to heaven and if not you go to hell.

I grew up an Evangelical (Assemblies of God) where Genesis was to be taken literally. I remember in 9th grade (!) trying to argue with the science teacher about evolution (God, thinking back I cringe hard). Then I learned Genesis 1 is written as a poem and that Genesis 2 is not a scientific creation account, rather it's a mythic story outlining our relationship with God, the earth, and everything else. What I'm saying is, once you learn something new it will be incorporated into your "worldview" and you'll need to react.

A different example with a similar point: as a child I was taught that the USA Revolution happened because of the Tea Tax being too high. "The taxes are too damn high!" They said and fought off the Brits. Then, as I got older I learned that there was way more to it than I knew. Was I initially wrong? Well, no... But there was more to the story than I thought.

>But the fun part is that our interpretations don't really matter anyway...

Literally everything is interpretation or at least affected by your biases and such. We've moved past positivism.

I'm going to skip over the hell bits because I'm obviously not your target audience. Everything your saying, I don't accept. Read the last post again and talk to me on my view, not this strawman you've created. Christianity is not monolithic. There are certain things that must be agreed upon (like the early church councils and creeds - whether or not you "accept" them, all Christians articulate their views) to be considered Christian - orthodox not heterodox. But, outside those, honestly few, points, you're good to disagree.

>And if you want my real opinion and there is a God as described in the Bible he isn't worthy of worship, he's a psychopath who is just toying with us.

I'd like to remind you that humans wrote the texts in this library called the bible and that they had certain viewpoints and could have easily interpreted things as God's doing when it wasn't. Or that it's actually known that the YHWH is a step up from other gods. For instance, you know when God commands Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac then says, "lol jk here's a ram."? Well, that story is not about God demanding Abraham to kill his only son (!), rather it's a story to show that God doesn't need human sacrifice! Unlike those gods over there...

>The way that religion works...

You're not even close. Religions are the Forms in which the Divine/God is being experienced by human beings. They are the bones of a structure of experience. Religions are that which describe God as understood by the people.

Once again, I'm on my phone - though at home now.

u/Rockfiend · 3 pointsr/TrueAtheism

Thanks for the recommendation! I have thought about that but it seems too biased to me (even though it's biased in my favor). The bible I have is academic and it seems to be unbiased for the most part. I love it--it has great intros and footnotes and the translation itself seems reliable.

u/gamegyro56 · 3 pointsr/Christianity

Definitely NRSV. You might want a Study Bible, which has annotations that explain most passages, as well as intros that explain each book/group of books. I'd go with the New Oxford Annotated Bible or the HarperCollins Study Bible (the non-Student one has a concordance, but you have to get it through one of those Amazon third parties).

u/skinny_reminder · 3 pointsr/Christianity

I think for your purposes the New Oxford Annotated Bible would be a good selection. It includes the apocrypha and gives a little background on the history and circumstances each chapter was written. That really helped me understand what I was reading by placing it in historical context. This bible is widely used by scholars and people studying the bible.

u/SabaziosZagreus · 3 pointsr/DebateReligion

For the Hebrew Bible, read the NJPS (New Jewish Publication Society) Tanakh (available online for free here). If you want a Jewish point of view accompanying, get the Jewish Study Bible featuring the (New) Jewish Publication Society Tanakh. Do not read the original (1917) JPS Tanakh (it is very outdated and was really a revision of a non-Jewish translation). Also do not read the Complete Jewish Bible or the Orthodox Jewish Bible as these are actually both Christian translations pandering to Jews.

For Christianity, read the NRSV. If you'd like commentary, there's always the NOAB with the NRSV.

For the Qur'an, my Muslim friends default to the Yusuf Ali version. It's a little old and dated though. A friend and I used the version by M.A.S. Abdel Haleem. It's easier to read, but he sometimes goes for the figurative meaning over the literal translation. It's also a little stylistically different than some older translations (not a good or bad thing, just saying). I think it's gaining some popularity among some circles.

u/Mstp1982 · 3 pointsr/exjw

For accuracy online, there is the NRSV - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1&version=NRSV. For a physical copy, The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha: New Revised Standard Version https://www.amazon.com/dp/0195289609/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_9XA.ybA7DYNZM. This one is used in college courses.

u/Xoipos · 3 pointsr/nederlands

Zeker amusant. Vooral omdat deze persoon de king james bijbel gebruikt, waarvan bekend is dat deze grove fouten bevat. De NRSV is tegenwoordig de beste vertaling gebaseerd op nieuwere vondsten zoals de codex vaticanus en de codex sinaiticus. Dit en andere verschillen wordt zeer duidelijk in de Oxford Annotated Bible uitgelegd. Mocht je een Nederlandse editie willen, zou ik de Nieuwe Bijbelvertaling aanraden.

Om nog maar niet te beginnen over dat wat niet met feiten onderbouwd kan worden...

u/i_make_song · 3 pointsr/TrueAtheism

The Bible is a collection of small works written by many people from a select variety of cultures over a period spanning many (many, many, many) years. Each separate work was frequently changed intentionally and unintentionally (in insignificant and significant ways), and as I understand it we actually don't have any of the original manuscripts. There is a ton of physical evidence for the frequent changes to various manuscripts because we have so many copies. The Biblical manuscript page of Wikipedia does a much better job of explaining this.

So even if we had perfect translations of the existing bajillion manuscripts (we don't) it wouldn't matter because they aren't the original manuscripts. I don't think it's very likely that they had any sort of otherworldly knowledge on them, but hey anything is possible right? It's just not very likely. I think a better exercise when debating is pointing out clearly immoral passages that cannot be interpreted in multiple ways (try 2 Kings 2:23).

Any serious historians (including Christian historians) do not believe we have an inerrant Bible. Although that sure seems to be the rhetoric coming from the religious right.

Some translations are also much more academically rigorous than others. Rupurt Murdoch literally owns the NIV translation and the NIV translation is overseen by only 15 people. You can interpret that however you would like.

I personally recommend the The New Oxford Annotated Bible. I have it in Kindle format (basically a DRM protected PDF) as it's a fantastic translation. As I understand it is the translation most often used by biblical scholars.

The Bible is actually fairly complicated compilation of writings with all of the different sources and languages that are complied together, but it's a fairly interesting story.

I'm by no means an expert on this stuff, but I've tried my best to be as accurate as possible. Someone let me know if I've slipped up somewhere.

Honestly, the topic is extremely deep, and my interest in the bible has become almost nonexistent over the past few years.

I've debated with countless "the Bible is the inerrant word of God" people with pretty solid evidence and points and it all seems to be that these people use circular logic. I'm not saying they're unintelligent (they're actually quite intelligent) they seem to be clinging on to an improbable belief or in some sort of delusion/denial state.

I think a better question is who decided these people literally talked to "god", and how did they determine what was canonical? Why couldn't I just write a new chapter of the Bible today?

Sorry if my rambling is incoherent.

u/extispicy · 3 pointsr/Christianity

I recommend the New Oxford Annotated study bible. It uses the New Revised Standard Version translation and has useful commentaries and annotations. It is considered among least biased sources and is the one I see assigned most often in academic circles.

Another useful gift idea might be the HarperCollins Bible Commentary and the companion dictionary.

u/Loknik · 3 pointsr/DebateAChristian

> They should make an annotated Bible that includes the genre and writing style you're reading in, and how it should be interpreted.

It exists!

u/mouka · 2 pointsr/Christianity

I also have to throw in my recommendation for the NRSV, specifically the Oxford Annotated. The notes are really informative and very secular (they don't try to come off sounding preachy or anything) A lot of other comments are saying it's rather expensive, but you can get a paperback version of it here for $20ish http://amzn.com/0195289609

u/SkepticalOfTruth · 2 pointsr/atheism

I was raised without religion in the US. I was mostly clueless about Christianity. When I decided to fix that defect, this was the bible bought. It's ecumenical, even to the point of having Jewish scholars working on the "Hebrew bible". http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0195289609/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?qid=1451324610&sr=8-1&pi=SY200_QL40&keywords=oxford+study+bible+with+apocrypha&dpPl=1&dpID=41ALejY7A4L&ref=plSrch

u/all-up-in-yo-dirt · 2 pointsr/DebateReligion

A little historical context goes so far.
If you ever need to get a present for a Christian loved one or someone interested in Religious Studies, get them one of these:
The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha: New Revised Standard Version

It really helps break the cycle of dogma and actually gets people thinking about things for themselves.

u/Roxasnraziel · 2 pointsr/TrueAtheism

I prefer the NRSV, but the NIV is pretty good too. This is the bible that my college classes used. It's a very good study bible, since it has tons of translational and historical notes. The editor, Michael Coogan, also wrote the textbook for my Survey of the Old Testament class. He really knows his stuff and presents it well.

u/ThomasMaxwell1 · 2 pointsr/bahai

One thing I'd like to add. When reading the gospels and acts, firstly keep in mind that Acts is the part two of the Gospel of Luke. I don't know if this is common knowledge or not, but I think it's important. Secondly, if you can, find an annotated Bible that is used for critical, historical study of the Bible. The annotations and commentary on these Bibles may or may not be written by Christians, but they do a good job of looking into the original, spiritual and/or metaphorical interpretations of the text by putting it into it's historical context and comparing it with common motifs and metaphors of the time. I personally like this Bible. It's the one we use for my Intro to the Bible class at University

u/peppermintHemlock · 2 pointsr/milliondollarextreme

I'm working through the Oxford annotated New Revised Standard Version. This version has tons of footnotes that explain the historical and literary context of the Bible. Each book has an introduction, too.

This translation is based on the KJV, but collated with ancient Hebrew and Greek editions of the Bible, so it's truer to the original sources in that respect.

Only negative to the translation is that they made generic third person pronouns (((gender neutral))) in the 1980s, but it's not too distracting.

u/SpaceYeti · 2 pointsr/exmormon

On 1 Corinithians 14:33b-36 specifically:

The best commentary I have found on this is in a book by Gordon Fee, but I doubt that will suit your immediate practical purposes. This article is the best I could find on short notice. Also, the wikipedia entry for 1 Corinithians talks about this issue.

Other sources I haven't read but have seen cited:

  • F. X. Cleary (1980), Women in the New Testament: St. Paul and the Early Pauline Tradition
  • G. W. Trompf (1980), On Attitudes Towards Women in Paul and Paulinist Literature: 1 Corinthians 11:3-26 and Its Context
  • E. H. Pagels (1974), Paul and Women: A Response to Recent Discussion

    More broadly, about Deutero-Pauline pseudepigrapha in general:

  • Wikipedia has a great entry on the authorship of the Pauline epistles. Additionally, the wikipedia articles specific to each specific epistle have sections that address their authenticity pretty well (Titus, for example).
  • Encyclopedia.com has a number of sources.

    A great read that covers these issues as a whole is Marcus Borg's Reading the Bible Again for the First Time. Borg is a great writer in general, and it is through his writings that I first learned about the authorship issues in the New Testament. I have not yet read it, but I imagine this book covers the authorship issues in great detail.

    Finally, this is what I have in my NRSV translation of the bible: https://imgur.com/UTaZWDa.jpg
u/[deleted] · 2 pointsr/Christianity

http://www.amazon.com/New-Oxford-Annotated-Bible-Apocrypha/dp/0195289609/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1301030300&sr=8-1

This. It's an excellent translation done by top academics in Biblical studies, along with annotations explaining and giving context for the passages.

u/megaparsecs · 2 pointsr/booksuggestions

Hmm, well you got a couple of options here translation-wise.

The NIV has been sort of the standard English translation for a while, since the 70s, but the accuracy/scholarly rigor of the translation is more questionable than some of the others, I think? It's got modern English, and is pretty readable. I don't know of any great study Bibles for that, though.

The New Revised Standard Version is basically a revision of a revision, but it's also in modern English and is used a lot more in academic circles than the NIV is. Consequently, there's also a lot more Bibles with that translation that have background info/cross referencing/etc built in.

The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha is possibly a good one. It all depends on what you're looking for, but that has a ton of footnotes, and I think intro material for each book.

u/Earthtone_Coalition · 2 pointsr/atheism

A lot of people here have claimed that "there are no unbiased books." This is simply not so, unless it's meant in some facile sense--presenting evidence to support a thesis ought not be interpreted as a bias for that thesis (though the thesis, on its own, may be biased).

Mind you, finding an unbiased book on religion is not so easy. Practically all the New Atheist books are right out, so no Harris, Hitchens, or Dawkins. That's not to say that these aren't fantastic writers, but they obviously wouldn't fall into the category you describe elsewhere of "an agnostic that states all of the beliefs of both sides and arguments for it without pushing towards a particular side."

My recommendations would be as follows:

God is Not One by Stephen Prothero -- This is a book on comparative religion in which the author seeks to demonstrate that the major religions of the world are not all "different paths up the same mountain," as is sometimes expressed to infer that all theists worship the same god. He gives a pretty balanced, if brief, account of the major underlying differences between the world's religions. Informative and interesting, but not particularly profound.

The Case for God by Karen Armstrong -- Here Armstrong examines how religions have changed over time. There's a focus on Christianity and she does a good job of demonstrating the immense changes that the religion has undergone since its inception. Arguing that today's systems of beliefs and views of God are starkly different from those our ancestors, Armstrong makes a strong argument for a return to the Gnostic tradition for those seeking to understand the supernatural. Sadly, she does devote a chapter at the very end of her book (needlessly, I think) to criticizing the New Atheist movement.

The Shadow of a Great Rock by Harold Bloom -- This is simply a literary examination of the King James Bible. No position is taken on the merits of the claims made in the Bible or of individuals who believe these claims. It can be very slow at times, as Bloom painstakingly demonstrates the careful literary decisions made by the authors of the KJV and compares it against contemporary examples like the Geneva and Tyndale Bibles. Obviously, this book is only tangentially related to the topic of religion since it focuses so intently on only one book--having said this, I never really understood or appreciated how people could consider the Bible such a beautiful literary masterpiece until I read this book. Bloom conveys his love of the work (in a purely literary sense--he's Jewish) on every page.

HONORABLE MENTION: The New Oxford Annotated Bible -- It's a study Bible with lots and lots of footnotes and maps and cross-references. Very thorough. It makes everything generally clearer and easier to understand. I can't vouch for a lack bias, since I'm not knowledgeable enough on the topic to discern what parts of the footnotes and introductions are questionable bias on the part of the authors and what's just the straight dope. Further, as with any translation of the Bible, bias may be inherent within the very text itself--though this version does a good job of mitigating that by indicating where and how other translations differ.

u/Shibboleths · 2 pointsr/AskMen

For people who want a more complete experience that teaches you to respect the historical/cultural context of many of the writings and why they were written, Oxford has got you covered.

Wasn't ever interested until I got to read the intro pages for each "book" as well as the footnotes in that thing.

u/MoreOfMe · 1 pointr/atheism

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0195289609/ref=redir_mdp_mobile

This is the version I have. The benefit to it is that it includes the Apocrypha, which is additional stories in the bible that most new versions leave out. It's some of the more out-there stories... one even involves a dragon. They're really interesting to read.

u/Tetragramatron · 1 pointr/todayilearned

The NIV in general and the Zondervan study bible in particular skew towards a distinctly "evangelical" interpretation.

If you want a study bible that takes a more scholarly approach and let's the text speak for itself then I cannot recommend highly enough the New Oxford Study Bible with apocrypha. I got mine a few years ago and I absolutely love it.

u/bottleofink · 1 pointr/Christianity

NRSV with apocrypha is the best all around.

You may want to pick up a study bible to at least help explain some of the cultural things going on in the text. I like the New Oxford Annotated Bible (which uses the NRSV) for that.

Note, the Christian Old Testament includes the Torah, but if you want to study it from a Jewish perspective, a Jewish translation might be better. I quite like the nJPS for that. Though I do think the NRSV is very faithful to the Hebrew text.

I've heard M. A. Abdel Haleem's translation of the Quran is the way to go, but I don't have a lot of experience there.

u/Influenz-A · 1 pointr/worldnews

I have studied this fine example quite a bit and I recommend that version for interesting historic context to the bible. We have studied a lot of different sources on this, don't go accusing me of cherry picking, obviously the bible is not a source we ignored, but it is not 100% trustworthy either. Again, there is no archeological or historical evidence for the exodus and no archeological evidence for the Israelites conquering Canaan.

u/MapleLeafEagle · 1 pointr/DebateReligion

Well for starters, it should be obvious to anyone who reads the first two chapters of Genesis. Genesis 1 and 2 present contradictory creation accounts. The only way to reconcile them is to assume at least one (or both) were not meant literally.

I'd check out the New Oxford Annotated Bible as I understand that is the "go to" in secular circles. I'll see what I can dig up on JSTOR in the next couple days and send to you if you really want some in-depth textual analysis.

u/rainbowcannon · 1 pointr/TrueAtheism

I would recommend the New Oxford Annotated Bible (http://www.amazon.com/The-Oxford-Annotated-Bible-Apocrypha/dp/0195289609/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1382149272&sr=8-1&keywords=new+oxford+annotated+bible)

It has copious footnotes about what different versions say and possible interpretations of the text. It also has fantastic essays on translations, exegesis (interpretations) and original texts as well as maps of Ancient Israel and it's surroundings. I don't think it's worth reading the bible without a study edition. It uses the NRSV (New Revised Standard Version) translation which I feel is a nice balance between accuracy and readability. Many universities use this as the textbook.

The King James Version (KVJ) is probably the most famous english translation and the best written. It's also somewhat less accurate then modern versions and harder to read (think Shakespeare). I also don't know of a non religious KJV study bible. Even if you choose a different bible, you should consider reading Genesis and Exodus to get a sample of the language. Another major reason to read to bible is to get a greater appreciation of literature because of all the biblical references (think Dante, Shakespeare, Faulkner, etc.) If this is your biggest reason for reading the bible then you should read the KVJ.

In America, the most popular bible is the NIV (New International Version) which was written for people with an elementary school vocabulary and comprehension and it shows. I don't recommend this version.

You can find sample texts of all of these versions and more online and you should compare them yourself. Try the beginning of Genesis for a start.

tl:dr KJV for English Majors, New Oxford Annotated Bible otherwise.

u/redsparks2025 · 1 pointr/religion

For your Bible studies I suggest the following.

  1. The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha

  2. Yale College free video lectures: Introduction to the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible).

  3. Yale College free video lectures: Introduction to the New Testament History and Literature.

  4. The Complete Gospels
u/DronedAgain · 1 pointr/Christianity

This has it all.

u/markevens · 1 pointr/Catholicism

I'm a big fan of The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha: New Revised Standard Version.

The maps, annotations, accompanying articles, and Apocrypha give a depth of understanding that are missing from other Bibles.

u/trexinanf14 · 1 pointr/Christianity

I would absolutely agree on the NIV as a good general purpose bible, however there are some alternatives out there depending on what you are looking for. I would highly recommend either The Book of God by Walter Wangerin or The Message by Eugene Peterson, both of which are a re-imagining (read: they should not be used as a reference!) of the biblical stories, the former as a novel and the latter as a bible where the stories are told using language you or I would.

I also greatly support using a study bible, the good ones will give helpful context or reference to the stories you read, or you can just go all the way academic and grab a copy of the Oxford Annotated Bible (but from the sounds of it you wouldn't want that).

Although workingmouse, I would disagree that the KJV is the go-to bible these days for protestants, largely for the reasons you gave. Speaking of definitely not kosher, has anyone read the book Lamb? It's a pretty humorous read, but you really need to be ready to hold nothing sacred for a few hundred pages. =)

Good luck in your search OP!

u/Agrona · 1 pointr/OpenChristian

Perhaps a good study bible, like the https://www.amazon.com/New-Oxford-Annotated-Bible-Apocrypha/dp/0195289609 ?

​

It's filled with commentary from academics of different faiths. The aim is to be scholarly. Many notes describe literary structure, context, etc.

​

So she'd be reading the primary source (well, translated), with hopefully about as unbiased as you could hope for commentary.

u/yamamushi · 1 pointr/Bible

You can't go wrong with the Oxford Annotated Bible,

http://www.amazon.com/The-Oxford-Annotated-Bible-Apocrypha/dp/0195289609

Personally I like the leather version, but it doesn't really matter:

http://www.christianbook.com/nrsv-annotated-apocrypha-4th-edition-indexed/9780195289572/pd/289572

u/motchmaster · 1 pointr/atheism

If you're going with that angle, get The New Oxford Annotated Bible

u/mfkswisher · 1 pointr/latterdaysaints

Congrats on your mission call, and double congrats on going to Central America.

As far as understanding and following the New Testament, you really can't do better than getting a good study bible. In addition to the text of the scripture, you also get scholarly essays that introduce each book, as well as notes running parallel to the text that help clarify and contextualize the tricky parts, written by academics from a variety of faiths. Either of the following two are great:

The New Oxford Annotated Bible

The HarperCollins Study Bible

You might also check out the next book, which is a standard text in divinity schools.

The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings

I don't know how much any of these are going to help you in 87 days, but I respect your ambition in trying to tackle the scriptures in such a short span.

u/thephotoman · 1 pointr/Christianity

No prime, but here you go. Ignore the side notes, which are often derided as crap.

Honestly, the best notes are in this version, which, while I'm not as fond of the NRSV as I am of the RSV as a transalation, it's serviceable. It does not include the long version of Daniel and Esther inline (but rather separated out in the middle as an appendix to the Old Testament), and I would strongly advise against reading anything from the books it calls "3 Esdras" and "4 Esdras", as that's not something anyone considers canon (but some have them as appendices).

u/mashiku · 1 pointr/Bible

The Jewish Study Bible and NJPS and the New Oxford Bible with Apocrypha and NRSV have good reputation among scholars. I have seen them frequently recommended over at /r/academicbiblical, and I've heard they are used at universities and seminaries. (E.g. the Open Yale Bible courses use them.)

u/AgentSmithRadio · 1 pointr/Christianity

I think you're referring to the Apochrypha. These books have complicated and often dubious histories and aren't taken very seriously by nearly all denominations.

It is worth noting that the KJV originally did contain these books. In fact, the translations still exist. From my understanding, these books were frequently not included in commoner's bibles mostly to save on printing costs and because they were seen as non-essential. The tradition has passed on to this day. It wasn't a deliberate theological decision by those who worked on the KJV.

You can find versions of the Apochrypha in English in nearly every translation. You'll have to buy a Bible which specifically contains them however. Most Catholic Bibles contain these books but only some Protestant versions do. Check the description of the Bible you are purchasing in order to confirm.

Pick whichever translation you want. Here's a version I happened to find.

u/excel958 · 1 pointr/RadicalChristianity

The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha is the standard.

I also highly recommend the Jewish Annotated New Testament.

Edit: My bad I thought you were asking for study bible recommendations.

What is it you’re wanting? Are you wanting to study biblical criticism and history? Or is this for spiritual practice and fulfillment?

u/GavinMcG · 1 pointr/Christianity

I second the NRSV, if only because it didn't intentionally try to satisfy conservative protestants by doing things like "updating" the RSV in reverting to "virgin" rather than keeping the (arguably known to be more accurate) "young woman" in Isaiah 7:14.

And I'd highly recommend the New Oxford Annotated Bible.

u/Zemrude · 1 pointr/Christianity

I've actually found The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha (http://www.amazon.com/dp/0195289609) to be reasonably helpful in that manner. It's based on the New Revised Standard Version, which is certainly not a fresh translation from all original sources, but they footnote every time that different sources have possible alternate meanings, including Aramaic sources, Greek sources, and Hebrew sources, so you can compare for yourself.

u/LocalAmazonBot · 1 pointr/Christianity

Here are some links for the product in the above comment for different countries:

Amazon Smile Link: I like this one


|Country|Link|
|:-----------|:------------|
|UK|amazon.co.uk|
|Spain|amazon.es|
|France|amazon.fr|
|Germany|amazon.de|
|Japan|amazon.co.jp|
|Canada|amazon.ca|
|Italy|amazon.it|




This bot is currently in testing so let me know what you think by voting (or commenting). The thread for feature requests can be found here.

u/ThatAngloCatholic · 1 pointr/Bible

For personal use: NRSV (NRSV Catholic Edition https://www.amazon.com/dp/0061441716/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_RXNcAbRPH70YR)


Or for personal study: New Oxford (The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha: New Revised Standard Version https://www.amazon.com/dp/0195289609/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_MWNcAb00WK17X)

Edit: Remember that translation is itself an act of interpretation.

u/dandylion84 · 1 pointr/Christianity

Let's say you would like to buy a new bible. Would you go with the NOAB:NRSV or the Harper Collins Study Bible and why?

u/r271answers · 1 pointr/religion

By the way you may also like the NRSV Oxford Annotated Study Bible it's pretty much the standard Bible used in academia and contains tons of information about translation choices, maps, information about cultural references, etc. I study religion at a secular state run university and this is the standard Bible that all the religion professors recommend.

You might also find The Book of Moses from The Pearl of Great Price an interesting read if you are into creation story stuff. It's from the Mormon canon: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/moses/2?lang=eng

My favorite Christianity-related creation story though is On the Origin of the World

u/maymaytheist · 0 pointsr/DebateReligion

Check out the Annotated Oxford NRSV. It has lots of notes, good historic and contextual intros to each book, and doesn't shy away from highlighting controversies in interpretation or inclusion/exclusion.