what is the best study bible?

>>8681429
You posted it.

>>8681555
how is it better than the rest?

>>8681682
The translation used is RSV-2CE, which is one of the best academic translations of the Bible. The commentary is extensive and based on Catholic doctrine. It has an enormous wealth of references, sources, further reading, and high-level theological exegesis. What's more, it has a tone of insets which give brief sketches of relevant and important theological, religious, and biblical concepts.

It frames the entire bible in a correct and academically-rigorous context. Plus, the physical edition itself is a high-quality object. I own three bibles, and this one is by far my favorite. I can post some pictures if you like, though I think IP has some good excerpts on their website.

>>8682055
is that you sheep

>>8681429
The Jerusalem Bible lad

>>8682055
Aren't all RSVs based on the Westcott and Hort rubbish?

Religious Study Bibles aren't very useful, imho. And I include the Orthodox Study Bible in that. If you want religious commentary, just use the Church Fathers, they're much more lucid an extensive.

If you want secular commentary, Robert Alter's translation of the Tanakh is your best bet for the OT.

>>8682086
>If you want religious commentary, just use the Church Fathers

Which is already included in the Didache.

File: 75.jpg (43KB, 564x845px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 564x845px

I'm just patiently waiting for Scott Hahn to finish the old testament.

>>8682102
He is doing a commentary or a translation?
Also, isn't he just pleb tier apologetics?

>>8682095
Not unless the book is as big as a car. Saint John Chrysostom's commentary on the Gospel of Matthew alone is 1300 pages.

>>8682107

Commentary. Right now he's just releasing the books individually as he works on them.

>>8682109
Yeah, if someone wanted a 1300 (well more because then you'd have to also read commentaries for other books, such as Augustine on John, which is some 500 pages long) page commentary on a single gospel, he would ask for that and not for a Bible edition which will help him as he was reading it, not as a scholar or priest who has 2-3 years of time and will to devote only to the bible.

>>8682121
I wouldn't personally trust the commentary of anyone who wasn't dedicated to the ascetic life.

>>8682130

Your opinion means nothing to me. Stop being such a tripfag.

>>8682130
I personally wouldn't trust the opinion of a tripfag on /lit/ whose sole persona is orthodox shilling.

>>8682130
>I wouldn't personally trust the commentary of anyone who wasn't dedicated to the ascetic life.

Says the faggot with an Internet access.

Fuck off.

>>8682134
>>8682135
>>8682157

What truthful rebuke did you just righteously utter of me, you worthiest of souls? I’ll have you know I failed God to the deepest of the pit in my class of worldly sinners, and I’ve been involved in numerous shameful transgressions on God's forgiveness, and I have over 300 confirmed faults. I am depraved in wicked thoughts and I’m the top coveter in the entire legions of the damned. I am nothing to thee but just another Satan. I will praise you to heaven and back with the most contrite of hearts the likes of which has been seen all too often from the sinner, mark my unworthy lips. You think you can serve away with your words of wisdom to me over the Internet? God bless, brother. As we speak I am contacting my holy communion of saints across heaven and your love is being traced right now so you better prepare for the Theosis, militant. The mercy that sustains the shining little thing you call your soul. You’re God's gift, kid. I can be all things at all times to all men, and I can bow to you in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just while kissing your hand. Not only am I extensively corrupted by unnameable vileness, but I have betrayed to the entire covenant of the Orthodox Body of Christ, and I will plead her to her full benevolence to sanctify your virtuous spirit off the face of the lie, you little star. If only you could have known what holy gratitude your little “meek” correction was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have blessed your benign tongue. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re reaping the harvest, you God fearing joy. I will weep thanks all over you and you will drown in it. You've found life, kiddo.

if didache is the past than why do other recommend the oxford or the KJV? also why is the douay-rheims never mentioned on this board

is NASB good?

>>8682411

The Didache is just a study bible that uses the RSV translation. I don't know what you're referring to with Oxford but the Douay-Rheims and the KJV are just translations, and one of them is protestant. You'll see people recommending the KJV a lot because there is a very stupid cult like obsession among many protestants called "King James Onlyism". They think it's the only translation that can be used.

>>8682411
>also why is the douay-rheims never mentioned on this board
Because it does, in every thread

>>8682446
by oxford i mean the oxford annotated study bible with apocrypha. also do you consider the didache to be superior to the Ignatius catholic study bible or the oxford catholic study bible?

>>8682456
Ignatius Press is the most massive, from what I know, so that's probably a good thing.

File: 54.jpg (39KB, 331x499px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 331x499px

>>8682456

I couldn't tell you if the Oxford study bible is any good or not. The Didache is the complete bible while the Ignatius bible, assuming your talking about my picture is only Mathew, Luke, John, and Mark. I'm a big fan of Scott Hahn but he hasn't completed his commentary on the entire bible yet.

>>8682411
>also why is the douay-rheims never mentioned on this board
See >>8682453.

As for why it's not the first choice, it's because it's essentially a translation of the Vulgate; and its later (and popular) revision by Challoner made it more like the KJV. All this was done without exactly going back to the original Hebrew/Greek manuscripts.

>>8682193
And the LORD said: Behold, yea, the tripcode, and he saw that it was not good..

>>8682479
Ignatius press study Bible is the full thing. They actually have separate booklets, 80-120 pages for certain books of the bible, like the Gospels, Genesis etc.

>>8682582

When you say Ignatius press bible are you referring to the one in the picture? If so you're mistaken because that only contains the 4 gospels. They're releasing individuals books as they finish them but they're not all done. You won't find Leviticus or Numbers for example.

>>8682421
See:

https://newepistles.wordpress.com/2008/04/02/search-for-a-formal-translation-nasb-vs-esv-vs-nrsv-a-conclusion/

You might find this useful, too, even if it's mostly about the ESV's (and, thus in a lot of ways, the RSV's) flaws, due to the NASB being more literal:
http://zondervan.typepad.com/files/improvingesv2.pdf
You'll find that the NASB sometimes fixes those things, but frequently keeps them as is.

As a reminder:
The NRSV is a revision of the RSV, which is a revision of the ASV; the NRSV is said to revise the RSV about 30%. The ESV is a revision of the RSV, revising about 6% of it. The NASB is a revision of the ASV.

Thus, the NRSV, ESV, and NASB come from the same family of translations with high regard for accuracy (that is, meaning preserved) and literalness (idioms/phrasing preserved). So, you wouldn't be shooting yourself in the foot completely by choosing or sticking to any single one of them.

tl;dr from the links and above text:

NASB is *very* literal, but some critics note it doesn't flow well. ESV has any of the flaws that the RSV had in terms of dated language, but it seems to tinkers with the OT to give a more pro-Jesus feel. NRSV is highly accurate but slightly less literal than the NASB and ESV, while updating the language of the RSV.

>>8682421
>>8682697
Also of note:

The NASB has never included the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical books. The ESV has published the Apocrypha but hasn't received an imprimatur.

>>8682656
By "4 gospels" I'm assuming you mean the New Testament, because not only does it say New Testament in the picture, I also have that hardcover edition and it is the entire NT, not just the gospels.

>>8682083
>Westcott and Hort rubbish
what's this?

>>8683266
A KJV-only tard not knowing what they're talking about.

RSV and its family (NRSV, NASB, ESV) are actually based on the Nestle-Aland NT; the ASV is the only one based on the Westcott-Hort.

>>8683361
Nestle-Aland is just as heretical.

>>8684267
how

>>8684740
It's not textus receptus

I read the kjv years ago. I would like to have another go at the bible. I was born a Presbyterian but have not really practiced since my youth. Would this be an appropriate version for me?

>>8685344
The standard Catholic study Bible for your country.

>>8684867
>muh KJV-only

>>8684267
explain why, please.

>>8684267
explain faggot

just finished Leviticus, shit was boring as hell, does it get better?
I loved genesis and exodus.

>>8687596
Out of the Pentateuch-Deuteronomistic History (Genesis to 2 Kings), Leviticus is the only one that is mostly/entirely skippable.

Numbers is a lot more interesting. Deuteronomy is so-so: it's basically a fuckton of foreshadowing, to the point where you won't remember every single thing that gets referenced later on.

But you need both of those books to read Joshua, which is quite interesting, and then Judges, which is probably my favorite OT book.

>>8687596
It does get better. Joshua is where things get more interesting.

File: 1470668668801.png (109KB, 674x354px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 674x354px

>>8681429
really like this one

>>8687596
isn't leviticus just a bunch of mosaic law type of stuff? I haven't bothered with it yet.

>>8688236
>>8688260
alright thanks.
>>8688308
yes pretty much, nothing interesting happens, I'd rather not skip anything though

is there an epub of the didache anywhere?

>>8689818

I've been looking for a while and haven't been able to find it. There's an ebook version for sale on Amazon so I don't know why it's so hard to find.

>>8689843
>>8689818
give to the church

>>8681429
HARPER-COLLINS

How about the reformation study bible? Esv version specifically

>>8690298
In general, a "study Bible" is always going to pitch you a certain overall point-of-view. Once you're past the point of general quality, it becomes a matter of whether you agree with or are willing to learn the perspectives of a particular point of view.

The New Oxford Annotated Bible, for instance, takes a relatively hands-off viewpoint siding with postliberal/liberal theology (i.e. it usually defers to the overarching narrative, but occasionally opts for rational explanations of things that happen). Other study Bibles can be decidedly conservative (i.e. treating the Bible in a "what you see is what happened" way), although there can be slants -- sometimes towards general Protestantism (NET Bible), or Reformers/neo-Calvinists (the one you've listed), or Catholicism (Didache Bible). And of course, there are more.

>>8690414
Okay, thank you for that explaination. The reason i asked about the reformation bible is because i was raised presbyterian. However, i havent practiced since my youth and honeslty have lost my faith almost totally. Now in my mid thirties and with a rather large family I've started thinking about the faith again. Along with that I'm an avid reader and interested in the literary qualities as well. I've been reading about the different versions for a couple hours and dont really know where to go from here. I was thinking either the reformation or esv study. Maybe i will just buy a few and compare for myself.

You people unironically study the bible? What?

>>8691878
It's a significant piece of literature, even if you're not religious.

>>8691878
Why not study it?

>>8692068
Because there are so many better things to read, both from an entertainment and a scholarly perspective.

>>8692120
E L A B O R A T E

>>8692120

You come off as a very insecure atheist.