Which paper Study Bible?

The ESV Study Bible is quite studly, and the NIV Study Bible is also worth a look. 

Carmen Gauvin-O'Donnell said:

Hey guys... which paper study bible would you recommend? (yes I'm a Logos user, but I still want to know). The one caveat is no "Message" or paraphrase-type Bibles... I'm really picky about that, being an NASB user to begin with.

I'm certainly willing to look at other translations though... in fact that might be a good idea just to see different scholarly inputs... (by which I don't mean the New World Translation or anything!) 

ESV has a whole bunch of study bibles (I have heard the Global Study Bible is quite good) but I recommend the standard ESV Study Bible, which has excellent articles and graphics to go along with solid mini-commentary (standard caveats about theological leanings which might be different to yours.)

I would not get the current NIV Study Bible. However, it is being updated by Doug Moo and DA Carson, so that might be a good one to get later.

I think the 1995 NASU that You are already using, is superior to the Evangelical Standard Version. I haven't used a Study Bible, but agree that ESV has bias in the Study Bible notes. Plus the ESV has bias in the translation.

I use other Bibles myself, I don't feel like discussing them right now, I'm focusing on writing other posts ...

For me it is hands down the ESV Study Bible.  It's a brick, but an incredible work, as far as study Bibles go.  I tend to collect study Bibles, however, and really like the Believer's Study Bible, which I'm not sure is in print/or it was renamed, I can't remember.   

Jewish Study Bible, which obviously doesn't include the NT. (Edit to add: There's the Jewish Annotated New Testament, a NRSV NT with Jewish study notes from the same people who did the JSB.)

I found the ESV Study Bible to be *extremely* narrow. I prefer the NIV Study Bible to the ESV, even aware of its problems.

I use two study bibles regularly:

Catholic Study Bible, Second Edition (NABRE) -> Coming to Logos, HERE.

Ignatius Catholic Study Bible (RSV2CE) - Available in Logos, HERE.

The Ignatius Study Bible is currently available for the New Testament.  The publisher is currently working on the Old Testament.

The first study Bible that I ever bought for myself was a NASB Ryrie Study Bible. I loved it.

Unix said:

... ESV has bias in the Study Bible notes.

All study Bibles have bias. The ESV is actually well regarded for being more objective than most, it shows several different views in difficult passages.

Unix said:

Plus the ESV has bias in the translation.

All translations have bias. Only way to escape that fact is to learn original languages (using lexicons and study tools which have bias of course) [:D]

 "The ESV is actually well regarded for being more objective than most, it shows several different views in difficult passages."

Oh really?

My comments from elsewhere, 2009.

>I know lots of people like it, but I was singularly *unimpressed* with its notes when I looked through it at SBL last year. 

The note on Genesis 1:1, for example, does not even mention the alternate translation of the verse, one many scholars take to be correct (i.e. NRSV and JPS/TNK.) Not even a mention, and it claims to be a Study Bible! Moreover, it assumes that Gen 1:1 (without mentioning the alternative) teaches creation exnihilo [again, something most scholars now reject], and then states that this is"confirmed by the NT writers' affirmation that creation was from nothing" though their citied passages affirm no such thing. They also leave out 2Peter 3:5, which has a connection to Genesis and creation from the pre-existing chaotic water/deep/tehom. 

For a *Study* Bible, I find the notes vastly incomplete and hopelessly dogmatic, with no mention of alternatives. Whether the scholars are right or not is immaterial to this discussion. I expect a *Study* Bible to present the options, not dogmatically choose and arbitrate between them for the reader, without letting the reader know there is even a question.  There *is* a debate, and the ESV Study Bible presents the topic as if there were absolute certainty. That is what I take issue with.

I'll give another thumbs up on the ESV Study Bible. You get free access to their online ESV Study Bible which I absolutely love. Very handy. Of course I had to have the module in Logos too.

I just added a Life Application Study Bible to my paper Bibles since Logos doesn't have it yet. Word of caution: get the Large Print version, the standard version notes are really small.

One other gem is the Thompson Chain Reference. Very useful and yes I wish it was in Logos too. 

FWIW, if you really use a bound Bible, look for a sewn binding and avoid bonded leather which wears out rather quickly.

Carmen Gauvin-O'Donnell said:

Obviously, I know I can quite easily find this info using Logos (and do it all the time   ), but what about when my Logos is in one place, and it's just me and my paper study Bible elsewhere?

There is only one bible that fits the bill: The Thompson Chain Bible.  You can get it in the original NASB and NIV.  I have a genuine leather NASB with outstanding features and binding - it should last for many years (edit: and has - for the past 23 years). I wouldn't mind having a digital Logos version of this bible as well.

David

Daniel Yoder said:

The ESV Study Bible is quite st***ly, and the NIV Study Bible is also worth a look. 

Peace and Blessings, Daniel!                   *smile*

               If you can still edit your post, you might want to replace the word st**dly with something else, eh???             *smile*

Steve said:

Thank you, Milford.

Hi, Steve!         *smile*                  Just now I realised that I should also edit the word in my quote of Daniel's  post ....      oopppssss, almost!    *smile*

                                                                  Thanks for your very kind post!

I like the ESV translation, but for a study bible I prefer the Matthew Henry  Study Bible.

You're asking a sarcastic theological question, but I'll reply with bibliographic/historical data, as soon as I get back to my computer at home. But yes, many scholars of many persuasions agree that creation ex nihilo is not intended in gen 1, and would have been quite foreign to the Israelites. It probably arises late in the second temple period, but the refer

 "something most scholars now reject"

A very silly and meaningless phrase to use.  Would be more honest to say "people who agree with me now reject".

Enns (again, an Evangelical, not some European agnostic liberal) goes on to say, 

"Biblical scholars are generally in strong agreement that the conventional translation of Gen. 1:1 is wrong (“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” [NIV]). This implies “creation out of nothing” (ex nihilo; cf. 2 Macc. 7:28), which is what neither Genesis nor other ancient Near Eastern stories depict. Genesis begins with the assumption that the waters (the “deep”) and the earth are already there. God separates the waters to make the sky and reveal the land, and then fills sky, earth, and sea with plant and animal life. For this reason, most scholars today translate verse 1 similar to what we see in the NRSV: “In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth.” This clause then introduces v. 2, which depicts the prior chaotic state. In other words, Gen. 1:1–2 together lay out the chaotic conditions: “In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was formless and void and darkness covered the face of the deep.” God’s first creative act is in verse 3 where he begins to order the chaos: “Then God said, ‘Let there be light.’ ” Genesis 1 is not interested in the ultimate origins of the chaotic matter."

And Michael Heiser, an Evangelical employed by Logos, also thinks Genesis 1 is creation from pre-existent matter.  "The conclusion of that post (and the powerpoint video) was that, according to the Hebrew syntax of Genesis 1:1-3, Genesis 1:1 (“when God began to create…”) was NOT the first creative act of God. Rather, Genesis 1:3 was His first creative act — and it was the initial act of re-creating or re-ordering the material described in Genesis 1:1-2."

Where the matter comes from is another question. 

http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/2010/08/god-as-creator-of-all-things-including-the-material-already-present-at-genesis-11/

Steve said:

However, please refrain from positing a theological opinion as Church teaching.  Mr. Smith is a theologian, not the Magisterium of the Church.

Um, I didn't see him anywhere claiming that Mr. Smith's theological opinion is Church teaching or that Mr. Smith is anything other than a theologian who happens to also be Catholic. He wasn't saying he represents the Magisterium.

Unfortunately, bara' does not connote or denote ex nihilo. John Walton, another non-liberal, has a whole book on that. (Two, if you separate his popular Lost World of Genesis 1 from his Eisenbrauns volume that covers the same material for an academic audience.)

But it doesn't hinge on the semantics of bara' at all, but the syntax of Genesis 1:1-2. Again, many (I'd say most, but haven't counted, you know) Semiticists and Hebraicists will tell you that the traditional rendering is incorrect. Enns says it, Smith says it (published, but heard it myself), Dennis Pardee says it. The NRSV and NJPS get it right.

3666.Create.docx

I edited my last comment to clarify my position.

I do not think I can convince you and I don't think you are going to convince me. I do believe ex nihilo is correct.

Ben said:

The note on Genesis 1:1, for example, does not even mention the alternate translation of the verse, one many scholars take to be correct (i.e. NRSV and JPS/TNK.) Not even a mention, and it claims to be a Study Bible! Moreover, it assumes that Gen 1:1 (without mentioning the alternative) teaches creation exnihilo [again, something most scholars now reject], and then states that this is"confirmed by the NT writers' affirmation that creation was from nothing" though their citied passages affirm no such thing. They also leave out 2Peter 3:5, which has a connection to Genesis and creation from the pre-existing chaotic water/deep/tehom. 

There *is* a debate, and the ESV Study Bible presents the topic as if there were absolute certainty. That is what I take issue with.

After seeing the responses to your post, I went back and took a look at this. I honestly cannot figure out why you would expect a study Bible written by evangelicals for evangelicals to include commentary by those holding positions contrary to the evangelical position.

The complaint seems to be: "I do not agree with what it says, therefore it is no good".

In fact, the commentary on Genesis 1:1 is very good in my opinion.

ESV Study Bible, Genesis 1:1 said:

The Hebrew verb bara’, "create," is always used in the OT with God as the subject; while it is not always used to describe creation out of nothing, it does stress God's sovereignty and power. Heavens and the earth here means "everything." This means, then, that "In the beginning" refers to the beginning of everything. The text indicates that God created everything in the universe, which thus affirms that he did in fact create it ex nihilo (Latin "out of nothing"). The effect of the opening words of the Bible is to establish that God, in his inscrutable wisdom, sovereign power, and majesty, is the Creator of all things that exist.

The statements here are New Testament dogma and aren't up for debate among the evangelicals (real Bible believers) it is targeting as its audience. John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16 explicitly teach this view. That settles it for those who believe scripture is the final authority.

Of course there is going to be some unbelieving "scholar" somewhere who thinks God didn't create everything. But I don't need that garbage in my study Bible. Who does?

My litmus test for a study Bible has always been Matthew 24:34. I can tell immediately if the authors are honest and truthful, or just propagating their own view by how they handle this verse. The ESV Study Bible is one of very few I have ever seen that attempts to give several of the most popular views. Honestly, it does not give the correct view ... but then, I have never seen a study Bible that does. The closest to the truth I have seen on this verse is the Reformation SB, which gives the historic Christian view (which today is called partial preterism). The majority of Study Bibles I have seen are dispensational in their view, so on verses like this one they have to do some kind of tap dance around the clear reading of the text.

The ESV SB shows that within evangelicalism there are numerous views, and attempts to describe several of them. Others (like the Holman SB) simply do not comment on the meaning of the verse. I can respect either method. What I cannot respect are the ones that dogmatically tell outright lies (like Ryrie and Macarthur do).

The ESV does this with most "controversial" passages. Controversial being defined as the various views within the evangelical and reformed stream. No attempt is made, nor should it be, to include the conflicting and ever-changing views of unbelieving scholarship.

Ben, just out of curiosity, is there a Study Bible that you recommend?

Ben said:

For a beginning, how about the Logos-produced Lexham Bible Dictionary?

"While it is often thought that God creates ex nihilo (“out of nothing”), the Genesis text testifies to the presence of a primordial watery chaos over which the “spirit of God” hovers", referring to Mark S. Smith's excellent book, The Priestly Vision of Genesis 1. Smith is Catholic, teaches at NYU, Hebrew Bible.

Or, Jon Levenson, Jewish, prof. at Harvard in Hebrew Bible. The LBD summarizes one aspect of his book Creation and the Persistence of Evil  by saying "Creatio ex nihilo is a falsification of creation in the Hebrew Bible." 

Or, Peter Enns, Evangelical, The Evolution of Adam- "Genesis 1 does not describe creation out of nothing, but the establishment of order out of “chaos."

So, for the ESV to not even indicate this as an option, really tarnishes it for me. 

"All things were made by him" doesn't leave an option for eternally existent primordial ooze [;)]

Ben said:

The NRSV and NJPS get it right.

"In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth," (Gen 1:1 NRS)

NRS Notes (Gen 1:1) (1) Or when God began to create or In the beginning God created

"IN THE beginning God created the heaven and the earth." (Gen 1:1 JPS)

I fail to see any difference here in these translations.

You're looking at the 1917 JPS, not the much more recent NJPS, which reads

"When God began to create heaven and earth — ² the earth being unformed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep and a wind from God sweeping over the water — ³ God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light."

In this understanding, when God begins creating, the earth is already present in a chaotic state, tohu and vohu, as is the deep.

I expect a Study Bible to give me the options and expand my views of the ways the text is read, not simply reflect my own dogma back at me. As for the "most scholars", what can I say? Reading across a wide breadth of scholarship (which is why I posted prominent Catholic, Jewish, and Evangelical cites), those who look solely at the Hebrew syntax tend to agree that this is a better rendering. Those who disagree tend to do so out of confessional/dogmatic reasons, not syntactic ones. (Google for Mike Heiser and ex nihilo, he has a few blog posts on the subject.)

But this is getting beyond the limits of the forums.

And I really should have included a [6] on that post...