cms@gatech.edu (02/27/91)
The New Oxford Annotated Bible has recently come out with the New Revised Standard Version. I haven't closely reviewed many of the annotations yet, but they did change one of my favorites notes -- that of 1 Corinthians 13; I rather miss the note that the greatest gift of the Spirit is love, which is God's love for us poured out in Christ. Sometimes the notes can be just as moving as the passages. It's been replaced with the somewhat drier "....inspired ultimately by the love of God in Christ for us through the Holy Spirit." I found the new note in verse 3 interesting, "Boast, or glory, at 9.15 and 2 Cor 1.14; note d [body to be burned --- cms] suggests voluntary self-immolation, martyrdom, or branding as a slave." I had always taken that to mean someone boasting of a martyr's death (as the old notes also say). Perhaps some people branded themselves with the mark of Christ (signifying slaveship to Christ) and some boasted of this? Thus, instead of being marked as a slave to the emperor (the marks on foreheads or wrists), some Christians marked themselves as slaves of Christ? An interesting possibility. At any rate, some of the changes are: The Deuterocanonicals/Apocrypha appear in the middle of the Bible, not after the New Testament (a positive change; I found the old way irritating). Inclusive language but not at the expense of accuracy. Revised annotations (the back cover says, "more closely keyed to the text"). Scholarly notes and essays, including new essays on the Pentateuch, historical books, the Writings, Prophets, NT narratives, letters, and apocalyptic literature. Also new introductions to various books. Wider margins (this does make it easier to read). On page 338, there's a nice Chronological Tables of Rulers from the United Monarchy (Saul, David, Solomon) to the Divided Monarchy, with the list neatly columned Judah and Israel; dates given are two different scholars, W.F. Albright, and E.R. Thiel, the latter in parentheses. The Bible pages are coded OT, AP, and NT. In the past, I haven't approved of calling the Deuterocanonicals "Apocrypha," since they aren't, however, here is an interesting explanation that is present in both versions: "The word 'apocrypha' is used in a variety of ways that can be confusing to the general reader. Confusion arises partly from the ambiguity of the ancient usage of the word, and partly from the modern application of the term to different groups of books. Etymologically the word means 'things that are hidden,' but why it was chosen to describe certain books is not clear. Some have suggested that the books were 'hidden' or withdrawn from common use because they were deemed to contain mysterious or esosteric lore, too profound to be communicated to any except the initiated (compare 2 Esd 14.45-46). Others have suggested that the term was employed by those who held that such books deserved to be 'hidden' because they were spurious or heretical. Thus it appears that in antiquity the term had an honorable significance as well as a derogatory one, depending upon the point of view of those who made use of the word." I suppose this means I can say "Apocrypha" and mean something honorable while simultaneously Protestants can use the word "Apocrypha" and mean something else. Still, in popular usage, the term "Apocrypha" has taken on the general connotation of "of questionable authority." Hence, I'm still reluctant to use the term, since I don't regard the Deuterocanonicals to be "of questionable authority." The Deuterocanonicals are the very Word of God. Later on, the text explains it well: "Deuterocanonical does not mean Apocrypha, but simply 'later added to the canon.'" The three major Catholic Churches (Episcopal, Orthodox, and Roman) regard the Deuterocanonicals as the very Word of God, as do the majority of Christians, which satisfies me. I'd rather put my faith in the Traditions of God and accept them as the Word of God than put my faith in the Traditions of men and reject them as the Word of God. Hence, I would be happier if the designation in the new New Oxford were DT instead of AP. At least the title page says "Introduction to the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books." Besides, Deuterocanonical is easier to type than Apocryphal; I had to correct the latter half a dozen times....:-) -- Sincerely, Cindy Smith [For those not familiar with the work in general, it is an annotated version of the Bible whose chief editors are the chairman of the committee that produced the NRSV translation, and another member of that committee. I believe there is some additinoal overlap between the NRSV committee and the editors. It provides introductions to the books, to sections such as the Pentateuch, notes at the bottom of the page on paragraph-size sections and individual verses, general background articles at the end, and maps with a map index. The emphasis in the annotations is on providing historical and other background, but there are some comments based on "higher criticism". Thus it might be unacceptable to those believing in the inerrancy of Scripture. The older versions were often required textbooks in university courses on the Bible. I assume this version will be as well. Be very careful when ordering, because it has the same title as the previous edition. The new one is still called the "New Oxford Annotated Bible", but is now labelled NRSV. (The concern with the title is that there might be bookstores that don't yet have the new one or are trying to sell off their old stock.) I consider it a reasonable but not ideal reference Bible. As part of the notes it has crossrefernces for places where one passage quotes or directly alludes to another (including all of the parallel passages in the Gospels). However it doesn't have any kind of concordance or index, nor does it have anything like the "chain reference" topical references or indices. It has section headings in the annotations, but the text itself has no headings or other breaks. In fact the text appears to be identical to the Oxford reader's edition of the NRSV. It has different page breaks but as far as I can tell the same line breaks and font. It looks to me like they didn't even typeset the text again. That's probably OK -- I find the typesetting in the reader's edition quite good. I thought the previous New Oxford Annotated tended to be a bit crowded and hard to read. This one is both attractive and legible. --clh]