The RSV New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha, in Black Genuine Leather
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 июн 2018
- A review of the New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha in the old Revised Standard Version (RSV); ISBN: 978-0-19-528335-8; 9780195283358; Style 8914A. This is a fairly detailed review, concentrating on the interior (paper, print quality, font, layout, readability). This book offers a wider selection of Apocryphal works than is available either in Roman Catholic Bibles, or in the KJV Apocrypha. In this video, I also caution readers concerning the tone and content of book introductions and explanatory notes.
"This is for those of no faith or very strong faith." Interesting and valuable point. Thank you.
I tip my hat to you. For 30 minutes plus, you lead me on a journey through a world I didn't imagine existed. Everything from printing, paper quality, binding quality and other facets of book printing was brought to life so I have know doubt about what you were talking about. Thank you. I admit I am not even on a beginner level about this subject, but I am fascinated by it. You've instilled in me a great appreciation of bible printing, construction and presentation. Prayers for the growth of your channel and many returns for your effort.
Those are very kind words, FloofyCat. Thank you! By the way, Airik1111 and Beau Tate know quite a lot more about Bible binding than I do. They both have channels on RUclips.
I recently obtained a hardback copy of this Bible and am digging into it and becoming familiar with it. I’m very impressed! Great translation and the notes and essays are put together nicely for a great Bible!
I appreciate reviews of some of these older Bibles. I enjoy any Oxford Bible reviews. Thanks, I enjoyed it.
In my limited experience, Oxford typically makes very nice Bibles. I bought their NKJV Scofield III a decade ago just because I loved the paper and print, even though I'm not a dispensationalist. My only problem with it is its bright red letters. Happily, they avoided those here.
I have a KJV Scoffield Oxford from the 1950s. They last! I use the NRSV 4th ed. Annotated every week for sermon and Study prep. It too is a good Bible, and its holding up real well, though I changed out the ribbons. Those tan ribbons fray real easy.
Great review! I recently purchased this bible and I love it! It's a little dated on some of the notes but the translation and layout are excellent! And it's a prettier bible than my New Interpreter's!
I just ordered this Bible in paper back I'm looking forward to reading it
Great review , one of my favorite translation. I will be preaching out of this Bible. I found it useful for Old and New Testament studies.
Thanks for viewing and commenting, charles.
Dear Sir, thank you once again for a fine Bible review. I also have an Oxford Annotated RSV, only mine, somewhat younger than yours, was printed in Korea. Not the best printed Bible in the world, but not the worst either. For an Oxford Annotated Bible in an excellent printing, check out their NRSV in its 5th edition,
printed recently by Royal Jongbloed in Holland.
Blessings, Rev John Wilderspin
Thank you for sharing this review
I've used this Bible for decades for my own study and daily prayers. I initially had a hard-bound burgundy-coloured copy, but that fell apart. Then I purchased this leather-bound edition, which has held up well, except that I had to take it to a binder for repair a few years ago. I like that it includes the apocryphal books, some texts of which I use in my daily prayer regimen, especially on the 31st day of the month after I have prayed through the 150 Psalms during a 30-day period. These include the Prayer of Manasseh, the Song of the Three Young Men (Daniel 3 LXX), and the supernumerary Psalm.
I don't think it's altogether fair to say that the notes come from an unbelieving perspective in their entirety. As with most such notes, I assume they represent a collaborative effort of many people with varying levels of faith. That said, it always irks me to read through Samuel and Kings and be told that such and such a passage represents the Early Source or Late Source, distinguished by their respective attitudes to the monarchy. I have no difficulty with the notion that Samuel/Kings might have more than one author, but the editors' reasons for distinguishing between them seem pretty lame. Is it not possible that a single author could understand that the monarchy would have positive and negative features? Why assume that ancient peoples were unable to reason in nuanced fashion?
I also simply crossed out the footnote on 2 Kings 22.20 on 488, which amounts to a denial of predictive prophecy.
As for the RSV itself, the effort to meld Jacobean grammatical forms with modern English is not always consistent and should not have been attempted. But that's an argument for another day.
Thanks very much for that informative comment -- and for your gentle correction! I am sometimes guilty painting with a broad brush, and from your comment it certainly appears that I did so in this video.
Your review makes me wanna get my own copy of this Bible.
It's a useful resource, and I believe it's still being sold new.
I have been thinking of ordering this Bible from Christianbook and so I’m very glad to find a decent review on it. I think the newer edition is just as nice as your older one. I am not looking forward to the notes-I thought they would be more traditional, but I see this is not the case, unfortunately. That being said, I think the overall quality of binding is enough to balance it out, so I do plan on buying this book at some point very soon. The font is definitely big enough, and I myself prefer a double column format. I am interested in the leather quality, and I suppose that is something you have to see and hold to appreciate. Oxford usually does a really good job with their Bibles. Thank you for the thorough review. I am looking forward to making this Bible my own, and of course, watching some of your other videos. Thank you for taking the time to make this video. God bless you!
Thank you for those kind comments! I'm happy the review was useful to you. God bless!
13:00 helpful graph which explains how different versions of the Bible broke down the books of Esdras, including how the terms referred to different books.
25:00 Also, useful page that explains the meaning and usage of the word “apocrypha.”
My Volumes (2) both have that same page 307 accidentally line matching... that's so cool u found that....
Love you comment about strong faith being able to brisk through unaffected...
This of all my bibles is my go to if I want see the main stream mentality...smile
Great review as always.
Thanks, gypsy! I'm seriously considering acquiring one of those black letter Cambridge Concords. Your video (ruclips.net/video/YCtau7W-1yY/видео.html) was very helpful. It also sent me searching, and I came across one Airik1111 did a few years ago (ruclips.net/video/3H9bgAiyizU/видео.html ). In my opinion, that's the real advantage of these review videos -- to help people like us make up our minds when choosing a Bible.
R. Grant Jones I don't have a lot of money and the concord was a trade with Airik111 look at his recent review on the concord it's the same bible, if that helps you, I have always wanted one of these bibles, and am grateful with Airik111 for the trade.
Dear Sir,
Do you have an update as to the literalness of the CSB and the HCSB? I am eagerly awaiting your assessment. I recently acquired a copy of both, and I love their readability. But I am wanting to know more about their accuracy as compared to the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts.
Yes. Take a look at this video ( ruclips.net/video/vBGAEBO-xU8/видео.html ) at about the 26:18 point. The CSB is on the more literal end of the spectrum, between the NRSV and the RSV.
Great review and I fully agree with your assertion that the Bible as a sacred text, a Holy Writ , cannot be reduced to mundane language...to me, the quasi-secular, mostly-scientific bent of the notes does offer a refreshing contrast to some bibles who are extremely and narrowly confessional and the Apocrypha is a treasure...It is a bit silly that every denomination is trying to "bend the Bible in the notes", while readers organize themselves in factions according to the type of notes they prefer for the same translation , e.g.,, the NIV with Baptist notes becomes very different from the NIV with Presbyterian notes, etc.
My uncle had the second edition of this, which switched from RSV to NRSV. I have the third and I've seen a fourth.
I think mine, a hardback, is the first one Oxford printed after switching to the NRSV. I believe the notes are almost the same as in the older RSV edition, with some adjustments to accommodate differences in wording. But I see newer editions in the bookstores. It might be interesting to take a look some day and see how the notes have evolved.
I believe the 3rd edition was a major rewrite but the 2nd edition had mostly the same notes as the first. Been years since I checked.
Like Sylvain Durand's comment below, the notes are designed for those who vote for the liberal approach to Bible interpretation. At the Lutheran seminary I attended in the late 70s, all students were required to use this version. Over the years, I used post-it note paper to cover the liberal notes giving me a lot of space for adding my own notes derived from other, better commentaries. The advantage of this version, along with its notes, is that you get to make the Bible say whatever you want it to say because it teaches you that Lena Horne was right when she sang: "'Tain't necessarily so; it tain't necessarily so; the things that your liable to read in the Bible; it tain't necessarily so." There, I just saved you four years wasted in a liberal seminary. That's there bottom line. Oh, the other perk ... you get to appear to be an intellectual. Just think.
This edition looks very good for crossing out footnotes with a pen. It's certainly a cheaper way to get the RSV Apocrypha than that new Schuyler!
Which one you like better the older one with the dark blue box or the newer one with the red box?
Thanks for the review. It's always annoying when you have a text you like, but terrible notes. Some of these bibles...you could almost loose your faith by reading the notes!
You're welcome. And you're right about the notes. I find that as I get older, it's harder for statements like those in the notes to phase me. So much of what's written is guesswork and opinion, reinforced through peer pressure and group think.
This is the best edition, in my view, of the Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypham 1966 or so. There was a fine initial edition, by the same editors, which I have kept. Its Apocrpha is the usual list of books in the Authorised "King James" Version. The edition reviewed here added writings to the Apocrypha from the canon of the Eastern Orthodox Churches. After this Bible, Oxford switched to the decidedly inferior New Revised Standard Version (with Apocrypha). Metzger was rather liberal, but still a believer, which is hard to say of the later editors (after the first of the N.R.S.V. edition, which was the last of these edition to have Metzger as an editor.
I have the Metzger-edited NRSV edition, but I haven't examined any of the later ones. Like you, I very much prefer the RSV to the NRSV.
I finally laid my hands on one of these, minus the Apocrypha. It seems better made than the NRSVs... hope to do a review eventually.
Please do. Thanks for commenting!
I use the KJV as my primary translation, but, knowing the fact that it's wording is similar to the KJV, but it isn't as thought-for-thought as say the NIV is, I think the RSV is a nice balance between word-for-word and thought-for-thought, so I will be buying this edition soon. Also, the fact that it has the extended apocrypha (unlike the KJV apocrypha I have) is a nice bonus. The gender-inclusive nature of the NRSV is a turn-off for me, so I will stick to the RSV. I will just be cautious of some of the notes in the RSV, as they seem liberal in some areas. Thank you for this review!
What is the difference between this first edition of the NOAB and the '65 OAB? Is it just the updated text of the RSV or were the notes substantially changed?
I've wondered the same thing, but I have yet to acquire an OAB in order to compare them. As you noted, they include different RSV New Testaments. The subtitle says, "Containing the Second Edition of the New Testament And an Expanded Edition of the Apocrypha." Then the copyright page gives the date for the Apocrypha as 1957, but adds that 3 and 4 Maccabees and Psalm 151 are copyright 1977. So the answer could be: revised New Testament plus the addition of Psalm 151 and 3 and 4 Maccabees.
You did a review on the Cambridge kjv Cameo reference bible with apocrypha and one on the rsv Schuyler Quentel with apocrypha. Which of the three do you recommend? I believe a few deuterocanonical books are missing from the Cambridge kjv if im not mistaken. From your review I dont think I would pay much attention to the notes in the new oxford. What do you think about the notes and cross references in the schuyler? Im looking for the bible thats most informative.
I really like your channel, may God bless you and allow you to keep up the good work Amen.
Thanks for the kind words. Of those three, I find myself using this RSV NOAB most often. The Cambridge KJV Cameo with Apocrypha does have fewer books than the other two, but more than you'll find in the typical Roman Catholic Bible. The problem with the Schuyler RSV Quentel is that there are typos in the Apocrypha. It may be that by now they've all been discovered and listed, and you could make pencil corrections in the margins. If so, and you can afford it, it's probably the nicest of the three.
Are the references in the RSV NOAB and the RSV Schuyler Quentel integrated with the deuterocanonical/apocrypha, referring both from and to the deuterocanonical/apocrypha? Does the Quentel have a dictionary or any extras that the NOAB does not have or vice-versa and how are the notes in the Quentel do they lean more twords a liberal or conservative point of view? Im more interested in what the book has to offer internally and not so much externally meaning goat skin leather and all the pretty stuff and what not. If you don't mind me asking, why do you use the RSV NOAB more than the Schuyler Quentel?
@@7JSepulveda - the verse references in the RSV NOAB are sparse, and those in the 66 books very rarely point to the Deuterocanonical ones, if at all. Have you seen my review of the RSV Quentel? ruclips.net/video/LxICiv-G5JI/видео.html
I don't have it handy, but my recollection is that it has many more references than the RSV NOAB, but like the RSV NOAB the references in the 66 books rarely point to the Deuterocanonicals. In addition, there's a problem with the references in the Deuterocanonical books, as I explained in a pinned comment to that video:
'The Schuyler RSV Quentel's references in the Deuterocanonical/Apocryphal books should be treated with caution, especially in chapters where the RSV and NRSV number verses differently. I explain why below:
'Take a look at Sirach 35. In Sirach 35.1-17, the RSV Quentel's references match those in the Cambridge NRSV, even though the RSV and the NRSV number verses differently. In Sirach 35.2, the NRSV reads, 'one who heeds the commandments makes an offering of well-being', and the reference there is to Lev 3.1 and Sirach 47.2, both of which mention the 'offering of well-being'. The 'offering of well-being' corresponds to the RSV's 'peace offering', but the RSV places 'he who heeds the commandments sacrifices a peace offering' in 35.1. In other words, the RSV Quentel's references at Sirach 35.2 should be tagged to Sirach 35.1.
'Something similar happens in Sirach 35.6. Sirach 35.6 in the NRSV reads, 'Do not appear before the Lord empty-handed.' But in the RSV, 35.6 reads, 'The offering of a righteous man anoints the altar, and its pleasing odor rises before the Most High' (which is like 35.8 in the NRSV). Both the Cambridge NRSV and the Schuyler RSV point the reader to Exodus 23.15, which ends with 'None shall appear before me empty-handed.' The RSV Quentel should have tagged the reference to Exodus 23.15 at Sirach 35.4, where the words 'Do not appear before the Lord empty-handed' appear.
'Bottom line: the references in the Schuyler RSV Quentel haven't been adjusted in all cases to account for the differences in the way verses in the NRSV and RSV are numbered.'
What is your opinion about the accuracy and scholarship of the annotations found in the New Oxford Annotated RSV? Thanks.
Thanks for the question, Mike! The notes are a few decades old, so they've likely been overtaken by new hypotheses and discoveries in some instances. But I'm no expert.
+13:23 Haha the numbering conventions for Esdras are a bit of a mess. It's like someone was secretly trying to restore the original tradition of naming Bible books by their first line. I was recently trying to work out which book was "Third Esdras".
Believer vs unbeliever notes…what do you mean by that specifically? Tnx.
It is quite odd that the DeuteroApocs were dropped at the very end. Breaking them out from the OT makes sense for an ecumenical Bible but why not place them between the OT and NT, which would make sense to all?
Certainly between the testaments is the usual position for those books. I've found that I actually like having them at the end. I think it has something to do with the fact that I spend most of my time in the New Testament. I'm not sure why, but I like reading, say, the book of Revelation and having a relatively thick stack of paper between the page I'm reading and the Bible's right-hand cover.
Does this have the Matthew 17:21 from the KJV. If not, is it in the footnotes? Was the same done for many "removed" verses?
That verse is in a footnote in this edition.
@@RGrantJones Last question: In the Apocrypha, is there a Tobit 5:22? If not, is there a footnote? Thank you so much.
@@KaiserAllen - There is no verse 22 in this edition, but the material the KJV puts in verse 22 is included in verse 21 here. There is no footnote.
Where can I print off Times New Roman and Georgia print size templates like yours? Thanks.
I made those myself using Microsoft Word and a laserjet printer. Thanks for the question!
Thanks. I have made a basic one on word (Georgia) from 8 to 12 points. I have to find out how to get 0.5pt increments now.
@@trevorhare9393 - I was able to type it into the font size field, if I remember correctly.
Yeah I found that out earlier. (My first day with Word believe it or not!) The template was a ‘practice’ document.
Also... In what sense in your chart do you mean more literal and less literal? Thanks so much!
I'm using an operational definition: Translations with higher numbers of "liberties" are less literal. Example "liberties" are shown on the chart.
@@RGrantJones Do you consider changing gender pronouns to make them neutral a liberality? I don't think I saw that on the chart. (Btw- Love the channel content! Thanks so much!)
@@mclyker - Thanks. I try to be fair. Sometimes a older translation, like the ASV, KJV, or RSV, will insert the word "man" when there is no corresponding word in the Greek. That's a liberty. Sometimes a newer translation, like the NRSV or the 2011 NIV, will translate so as to avoid pronouns like he, him, or his that are present in the Greek, and that reconstruction can count as several liberties. On the other hand, replacing "brothers" with "brothers and sisters" isn't a liberty in my book, because my lexicon says the Greek word can also mean "brothers and sisters."
@@RGrantJones Really interesting.
Can you explain to me the difference between this and the RSV2-CE which i own. Thanks
Reece - I haven't examined them side-by-side in detail, so I can't give you a comprehensive comparison. But the RSV in this video, which includes the 1952 Old Testament and the 1971 New Testament, uses archaic language (thou, hath, etc.) when referring to God, while the RSV2-CE does not. At Isaiah 7.24, the RSV in the video has, "Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son ...", while the RSV2-CE has, "Behold, a virgin shall conceive a bear a son ..." Another notable set of differences occurs near the end of Luke's gospel, where the old RSV in the video relegated some text to footnotes. For instance, this old RSV omits Luke 24.40, but it has a footnote at Luke 24.39 that states that other ancient authorities include verse 40. But the RSV2-CE includes verse 40 in the text. In addition, the RSV Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha includes books or sections of books not normally contained in the RSV2-CE, such as the Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151, 1 and 2 Esdras, and 3 and 4 Maccabees. Finally, the RSV Oxford Annotated Bible moves the books Protestants consider apocryphal into a separate section at the back.
So, to sum it up, I would say that the RSV2-CE differs from the old 1971 RSV by modernizing archaic language, making a few adjustments in a conservative direction, and updating the New Testament in accordance with more recent scholarship. It differs from this particular edition (the RSV Oxford Annotated Bible) in the books it contains (the RSV2-CE has fewer books) and in the order in which they appear. Hope that helps.
@@RGrantJones Yes I've often wondered where 3 and 4 Maccabees had gone to in my NRSV it's an episcopalian common book of Prayer 1979 and it has all the books this RSV annontated one has. Why does the 2CE disregard the Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151,1,2 Edras? Is there an acceptance or relaxation in regards to the Catholic doctrine of inspiration of the Apocrypha and merely sees it as a writing of history rather from the Holy Ghost? I'm actually thinking about converting to Catholicism because the breaking of its history going all the way back to Peter. What made me think about not converting was a Protestant talking to me, explaining how Peter actually denied Christ and his doctrines but God is just to forgive us of our sins if we accept our sins. I think the LXX in Ezra's synagogue translated before Christ the word in Isaiah to be virgin (parthenos) instead of Almah which is similar to Betulah although the Septuigamt also translates Exo. 22:16 as virgin too. The Masortes denied this translation, a 9th century forgery of the books were being written to discredit the text. I think it was Justin Martyr who begged the Jews for a translation because I think they were now tampering with their own scriptures not hugely, but so Christ wouldn't be as noticeable.
@@RGrantJones Yes it helped. I tried to do reviews but I suck at them. You definitely have a skill doing this which I do not have. Haha anyway it helped and I'm going to get this Bible, the RSV is my favourite translation and have been on the gateway comparing it to my KJV/RV, NRSV, NKJV, CSB, NASB and just prefer it. I think we are all guided differently, what is your translation of choice if I may ask?
@@RGrantJones have in my NRSV 1979 I have the books as follows Tobit, Judith, Esther (Greek version), Wisdom, Bel and the dragon (chapter 14 Greek version of Daniel), Prayer of Manasseh, Sirach, Baruch, Prayer of Azariah and song of 3 Jews, 1,2,3,4 Maccabees, 1,2 Esdras, Susanna, letter of Jeremiah, Ps. 151. Is there any books here which aren't in this RSV?
@@reecemesser One thing that may be different is that this RSV includes additions to Esther from the Greek, but not a translation of the entire Greek book of Esther. Otherwise, as far as I can tell, all the books/sections you list are included.
Why does mine feel like plastic? (new)
Any chance you might review the new edition of the NOAB?
David - I plan to review the 5th edition within a few weeks.
Kindly inform me How could I have this amazing bible in India.
I want to buy it for my personal study. Thanks a lot respected sir
Thank you for your comment! Have you done an internet search on the ISBN?
This is the listing on Amazon India:
www.amazon.in/Annotated-Bible-RSV-Revised-Standard-Version/dp/019528335X/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=rsv+oxford+annotated+bible&qid=1609535208&sr=8-1
I think the RSV was successful at being a translation in modern but still elevated English. The NRSV tried too hard to be the NIV, which was too casual. The CSB takes things even further in the wrong direction. (Here's what I dislike about the CSB: I have a rule when translating the Bible: NEVER USE CONTRACTIONS. That's just too colloquial for Holy Writ. :@)
I agree. The NRSV improved the accuracy of the RSV in a few passages, but I dislike its style and deference to modern ideas about inclusiveness. I don't own a CSB. I've been scoring the "literalness" of that translation using Bible Gateway, and I was surprised when I came across my first contraction -- the first I had seen in any Bible ever, as far as I can recall. But a new passages later, I saw one in the NET! The NET, at least, has the advantage of being packed with useful and informative notes, so I think I'll keep it.
Yeah, I got some funny ideas about inclusiveness (or rather, EXCLUSIVENESS) when it comes to Paul...
Is there any other RSV with Apocrypha Study Bible version which has a modern font, publishing date and printing? This version looks very old. I want to change my very disappointing RNJB translation with a better Study Bible. NRSV is too humanistic, as you know.
Not to my knowledge, Hassan. This _may_ be the only non-Catholic RSV still in print. Schuyler intends to publish a premium edition of the RSV with Apocrypha in August, but it will not have study notes.
@@RGrantJones Will Catholic Study Bible be a good option, instead of RNJB? Both have liberal notes, but at least CSB is much more detailed. Btw, will you recommend RNJB as a Study Bible, or will you prefer Catholic Study Bible.
@@hassanmirza2392 - I haven't examined the Catholic Study Bible in detail, but my impression is that you're right and it has more detailed and useful notes than those in the RNJB. I rarely touch my copy of the RNJB except to compare it to another translation in a specific passage, or to answer a question from a viewer. It's too bad there isn't an RSV (or even an ESV) that suites your needs, with the Apocrypha in a separate section, and with detailed notes that are neither doctrinal nor anti-supernatural.
@@RGrantJones Doctrinal notes are fine, naturalistic are useless. General Muslim point of view about Bible is that OT canon belongs to Jews and NT belongs to Christians. So, most of us have no idea about these very controversial Apocrypha books. I have read some of these books, it is for sure not scripture as it is not ascribed to the Prophets or their apostles / followers. It does not even read like one. Actually, many Church fathers agreed with this position, including Jerome. But Church overruled his position. So Jewish scholars and Luther were correct about OT canon. Because of this controversy Christians can not have a single Bible, and I had to spend a lot of time to find out which Bible makes more sense.
@@hassanmirza2392 - You're correct regarding the Church fathers. The lists produced in the eastern part of the Roman Empire generally excluded those books. John of Damascus, the author in around the year 700 of the Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, left them off his list of canonical books. They appear to have been accepted as canonical in the West from Augustine's time onward. I suspect they've gained influence among the Eastern Orthodox, over the years since John of Damascus, through Roman influence. I did a video book review on this topic last summer: ruclips.net/video/AbsQNLWVwgk/видео.html .
The fifth edition of the nrsv oxford annotated bible came out in 2018.
I just might order a new one. I have a red hardback Oxford Annotated Bible thst I bought in 1989, or 90. I used it all through six years of Catholic graduate school, working on a Master of Arts in Religion. I need a new one, because the old one is very much marked up.
April 2021... I still need to order a new RSV.. but I did break down and order an NRSV, with Apocrypha, because thst is Whst is read rein the Lectionary every Sunday at my small ELCA church. I just know the gender thing is going to annoy me.. a lot.
For oxford annotated, I would wait for the 2021 nrsv revision to come out first.
I definitely do NOT want the NRSV.
From what little I know about the NRSV, the text has been translated into modern English, eliminating the "thee's, thy's, and thou's", and has made bows toward satisfying the more liberal and feminist elements. The text may be more accurate in a few places, but it's not substantial. I am of the opinion that "political correctness" should have no place in Biblical translations. That is a turnoff to me, therefore, I would never buy a NRSV.
In what sense do you mean this translation is more liberal than conservative?
I talk about the reputation the RSV had for being liberal in this video -- ruclips.net/video/sU6eHhTV4Uk/видео.html&t .
@@RGrantJones Thank you I'll check it out! Great channel.
I read that this is the first ever ecumenical Bible ever produced by Christians, with all of Apocrypha books. Usually Western Protestant canon has 15 books, but there are in total 18 books which are there is RSV.
I think that's true, Hassan! It's the first one I heard about. Thanks for the comment!
Apophraca what for ?
The ASV was written by many of the same people who edited the RSV shortly after the RSV was completed because of disagreements between the British and American editors. I prefer the ASV because it retains the messianic references. Isaiah 7:14 does say virgin in the Greek Septuagint (and ASV) written over 200 years before the birth of Christ. So clearly while "a young women" was the phrase used in the original Hebrew, the Greek translation shows us how they interpreted it. Also, the ASV uses the actual name of God.
As usual, a great review. Unfortunately this is a poor study Bible, given the weak notes.
No red letter no deal.
'Red ink no deal' for me, most of the time.
Question: why sell the word of God when it's supposed to be free??
People gotta eat!