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]