Reviewing the new SBL Study Bible! 

I'd like to say Thank You. I'm not very religious and to be honest never was. But Bible was in my circle of interest because my education as a librarian. For me Bible was a book about history etc rather than some guide in my life. But your videos made that I bought Study Bible and it was the best idea I have ever had since very long time :):) Reading this, with all those notes and additional info was really eyes opening :) The way you are talking about those Bibles is fantastic :) Thanks, Happy New Year and best wishes for 2024, greetings from Poland :)

Let me preface this by reiterating that my favorite study Bible is the New Oxford Annotated Bible. My inclination is to prefer study Bibles that are very open to academic perspectives rather than simply forwarding apologetic perspectives. That being said, I find myself taking issue with the SBL Study Bible in the same way that I did with the HC Study Bible: there's a huge difference between being willing to think outside of evangelical Chicago Statement inerrantist presuppositions and being unwilling to affirm anything other than the most skeptical reading possible. I can only take so much talk like "Matthew's Gospel is fiction" in my study Bible notes before I have to throw up my hands.

Thank you for this honest Review of the SBL Study Bible. I picked this one up, skimmed through it, and put it right back down. This one did not capture my attention. Have a blessed weekend. 🙋🏽‍♀️

Thank you for the great review and explanation. I have a 'tissue paper' Bible, even colored pencil showed through, I write my notes on scraps of paper and tape them in tip in style.

Thanks so much for the in depth review of the SBL SB. I might get it on my Kindle just to have the apocryphal books. Nice to know about the bible odyssey website.

WOW! What a terrific, honest, in-depth analysis and review of the SBL Study Bible. You just earned another subscriber, and I'm very picky about subscribing. The SBL doesn't sound like it's for me as a Christian, but since I am writing a commentary on Genesis that will ruffle feathers at every point along the criticism-confession continuum, I probably need to at least read what the non-believers are saying about critical verses, especially in the Pentateuch and the greater Hebrew Bible. I purchased a French copy of the Archaeological Study Bible (Bible Segond 21 Archéologique) on your recommendation a few weeks ago, and I have already found the volume quite helpful, not only in deepening my understanding of passages but also in locating primary journal articles on topics in Genesis and some of the prophets. An ecumenical Bible I really enjoy that doesn't throw out the baby with the bath water (that is, maintains a respectful and confessional perspective) is La Bible Traduction Oecuménique (TOB). I've come to prefer it over both the NRSV and the NABRE. Another good translation with useful notes is La Biblia Latinoamerica, Edicion Formadores (2005 revision). Thanks again for a great review!

Thanks for the review, can’t wait to pick up my own copy!

This is a really great review. My masters is in Hebrew Bible and I’m super interested to see how they handle my special interests. I, personally, really love the NRSVue. I actually got my first “premium” Bible in the NRSVue with apocrypha bc it’s the translation I like to use for my studies. Thanks for such a thorough and balanced review.

All in all, basically the biggest changes to the NRSVue were the ones which people already got up in arms over when the translation hit the news. Otherwise, the changes are subtle (lots of punctuation shifting, small rewordings) for the sake of making a translation which flows better and (mostly) tones down the goofy tone so much Christian writing had in the 1970s and early 80s. It's a fine translation and I disagree with it marginally less than I did with the NRSV. Even as someone who is in favor of same-sex marriage, I do find it weird that in Romans 1 the notes didn't include the possibility that Paul was describing all homoeroticism, agnostic of content or motivation. It is more than possible, even if I personally find it as unlikely as the possibility that pederasty would be the clear implication for first-century readers. I get the desire to err towards inclusion; that shouldn't cause the notes to shy away from giving mention to a reading as plausible as the ones already given in the notes.

Great review! I was on the fence as to whether to buy this or not. You just saved me $40. I would like to see a review of the Legacy Standard Bible.

JM, thank our for another great review. Very helpful. I may have missed this, but have you ever reviewed the Berean Study Bible? I would be very interested on your take.

Thank you and I totally agree with your recommendation purposes 😊

Thanks as always for your thorough reviews. I've been waiting for an NRSVue SB, but I'm not compelled to buy this one. I don't mind academic study Bibles, but the notes in this seem very odd. And the ghosting... it must be bad if J.M. comments on it! It really surprises me as it seems their biggest competition is the NOAB which is really well laid out and printed. I think I'll just wait for it to get an update.

My issue with many study bibles is that the speculations and assumptions created by the Documentary hypothesis are not clearly stated.

When I first started "studying" the Bible I was VERY susceptible to text criticism and skeptical theories of dating, authorship, stuff like that. They seemed so logical and I just naturally trusted the academics. They obviously know what they're talking about, right??? Thank God, the more I learned I realized that their theories are typically based on tenuous assumptions, discount reasonable alternate possibilities, and are lacking in provable facts. It really shocked me, but ultimately strengthened my belief in the Bible's inspiration and inerrancy (with caveats... not literalism!). So for these reasons I don't just disagree with "scholarly" Study Bibles like this, but I actually think they are intentionally pernicious and dangerous. Tackling the Bible is ALWAYS the first step to attacking traditional beliefs. If you are going to read something like this as a Christian you need to be mature enough in your faith first to handle it. Just my opinion fwiw

Just saw this pop up last week... been waiting for this review!

13,000 Subbies!!! Wowser. Good on ya,JM.⭐🌹⭐

As a professional printer, when you say "bad quality printing" I wince, because I hope you meant to say "cheap paper is too thin." All the printing craftsmen/people/hobbits who laid this out and printed it probably did their best and made a nice looking layout, and the business people who opted for thin paper (cheap) ruined their effort, because the actual fonts and printing are fine, it's the material/media that is cheap and subvert the nice duotone blue layout. I have this new Bible as a paperback, I know how to use it to mitigate the ghosting (slip sheet behind the page you're reading); and I really miss the old Harper Collins chapter in the back "O.T. texts quoted in the NT." To me, that is a very important chapter that is just assumed to be common knowledge nowadays, or hiding in your old Bible, so I can see another business decision to omit it. There are a lot of business decisions about the printing of this Bible. I am THRILLED to see Theresa Morgan's essay on "faithfulness" / pistis in this Bible. There are things about this Bible to like. But can I ask a stupid question because I am not a professional Bible dude? I have learned as a former KJV only fundamentalist-turned Episcopalian to LOVE background studies, Koine, the LXX, the deutero's, etc. I have begun to collect everything related to the second temple period, anything written by D. deSilva, Craig Keener, John Walton and Tom Wright, etc. I have just been reminded that Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticainus contain the Shepherd of Hermas (I know it's weird, we had to read it in Greek class in 1988), as well as the Odes and Barnabas. Could I ask you to use your awesome influence to get someone, anyone to publish a book similar to the thing that Lexham put out, the codex uncial based LXX complete with 1 Enoch, but this time, include the NT, the Shepherd, Barnabas, and maybe even Clement and the Didache? Because it seems like if the 3rd century monks could make a codex to accommodate all this material, why can't we? I know the Southern Baptists put out an Ancient Heritage Bible with quotations by the apostolic fathers, but they omitted the good stuff I just mentioned. I also see everyone chasing after the gnostics from Nag Hammadi, but why in the world are people not demanding to see the codex "extras" like Shepherd and Barnabas and the Odes, Clement, Didache, etc? I would recommend Lexham do another LXX but instead of tacking on just 1 Enoch and the Odes, they include all of the NT extra material that is found in A, B, and C. To me, the orthodox NT deuterocanonical is getting left behind the NT gnostic publishing. It's actually hard for me to find NT orthodox deuterocanonical because the market is flooded by Gospel of Thomas et al.

I bought it thanks.

Great review.

Thank you for saving me some money!

Thanks for the review. The tissue paper pages would annoy me, so I will pass on this one. I will look up Bible Odyssey. After watching your channel for the past two months, I wish I had gone to seminary.

Very good review. I think Oxford Study Bibles are better than HarperCollins Study Bibles for historic-critic method based Bibles.

What is it about the NRSV that makes it more geared for "Academic use" as opposed to say the NASB, NIV, CSB or ESV? is it considered less biased in someway, or was it just created for that purpose?

I understand the Westminster Study Bible, to be published in Oct, 2024, will also use the NRSVue. Do you think it will be better than the SBL SB in terms of its scholarship?

That note on the Synoptic Problem, presenting the Q and Augustinian theories is atrocious. The main challenger to Q in the academic world for decades has been the Farrer theory. There was even a phase in the late 20th century when the Griesbach theory had a wave of popularity. That note looks like it hasn't been updated since about 1950.

Thanks for grat content. I really enjoy it. Little suggestion: I think that your reviews of study Bibles are really good. They have kind of established pattern. You allways go to the same texts and look at how particular Bible aproach them. And this is very very good. Because audience always know what to expect, and this kind of stucks to you. And this is very good strategy. Nevertheless, it also has downside: after awhile this approach becomes somewhat stale. I would suggest that you introduce, add new section in this kind of video reviews which would assess general helpfulness of Bible notes: are they crisp, clear, insightfull, concise or vice versa.... In this section of review it would be possible to go to some better known Bible texts (not allways the same texts) (for example Isa 53) and see how notes of this particular Bible are helpfull or not in conveying, explaining meaning of the text to the reader.... Maybe to give good, great and not so great examples. This would introduce variety in already great template of the your videos. And would also give new dimension of understanding what is particular study Bible all about. For example I whatched your video on one of the Bibles. This Bible (think it was Baker Illustrated study Bible) checked all marks - which would make it great study Bible. Nevertheless I looked at reviews on Amazon and lots of reviewers remarked that notes were pretty lame! I know that this is pretty subjective - what speaks to one, may not to other... but nevertheless. This new section would help. (Maybe even introduce what reviewers on Amazon are saying about Bible, and compare it with your own assesment) This is just an idea! Sorry for sloppy english, I'm from Croatia!

Are you still reviewing Bible apps? Because I’m interested in you reviewing Tecarta Bible. I have an outdated iPad and I’m hoping to get an update someday and mine has the old version and I know they released a new version so I’m curious about it. Offline translations and study notes are not free but intended to be affordable.

Lutheran Study Bible won the poll, you didn't have it available?

interesting. I think I might have tried it, but good review, I don’t think this is for me.

I use the NOAB Thrid Edition, Harper Collins and now the SBL Study Bible. I have used the NRSV since it came out in 1989 (my first year in seminary) and now I am happily breaking in a text NRSVue in goatskin. The study notes from the other three serve to inform my reading, teaching and preaching.

Good review. Continued disappointment with liberal "scholarship." But I knew what I was getting when I bought the SBL Study Bible. Your review has confirmed everything I have found so far. However, there is some useful information; but it is necessary to weed out the wheat from the chaff.

Great and very helpful video. You miss some mistakes. The text of NRSV and footnote ESV and some other versions do say in Gen 9:20 "Noah, a man of the soil, was the first to plant a vineyard." The whole book basically portrays Genesis of everything which includes the surrounding wicked and jealous nations. You can't take the book as a history by confusing the midrashic mythological genre of its literature.

Not to discount the positives in the notes, the poor quality paper alone is enough to convince me not to buy the Bible. In addition, I don't need a study Bible that approaches the text with a hermeneutic of unbelief and suspicion. Thanks for addressing the commentary on 1 Cor 6:9.

I don't know about this one. I think I like that it exists, but maybe I don't want the non-religious academic notes on the Bible. Thanks for the review.

In another words, It is NOT a christian 'APOLOGETIC' bible. Good. That's why it is excellent! Scholars are featured.

Would you recommend the kindle edition or the paperback?

Why only the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Apocryphal texts? Why not the Ethiopic or Gnostic?

My first impression is that it denies the inerrancy of the Bible. From your description, it seems to be a very liberal theological work and something to stay clear of. My concern is that someone who is not biblically trained in topics such as church history, hermeneutics, systematic theology, or decerning will fall into heresy by reading it. I'm an academic as well as a church pastor so having this in mind I would have trouble reading some of these Scholars that outright deny the inerrancy of the Bible from the outset. We run the risk when we approach the Bible from purely a secular view of eisegeting the Scripture and hence fall into heresy.

Thanks for this helpful review. Now I know I won't be buying this particular study Bible.

When you say all the apocryphal books, do you mean even those that the Ethiopian church maintain? I don't know what they all are but I know they have several other books that no one else has.

Is there an online version...or does Logos carry it?

NRSV-UE is pronounced like "nurse view"!

I began to doubt almost 50 years ago now, when a preacher from the pulpit, said of a passage from Ecclesiastes, "Even though it seems to say this, that is not what is meant." I went to the trouble of reading it in the entirety of the book itself and concluded he was wrong. I also recall him talking of "vanity" in that same sermon, as if "vanity" was what the text was talking about, and not lack of meaning. He believed what he wanted to, and even the Bible would not change his mind. JM, when you started this vid you said this was not a "Christian" study bible. I think the actual meaning of what was written in the book that was supposed to explain what I believed would be more important than what I, or anyone else wanted it to believe. I think that an objective look at the texts would be more fruitful than a biased one. Yeah, an atheist would not go out of the way to find evidence for supernatural events, but wanting there to be supernatural events should not reject good scholarship. Christians often have already decided what they want to believe, as do most non-scholar atheists. The Christian Bible is what it is. Start there. I don't assume it is true. I just read through Genesis and Exodus. The repetition of story elements that Christian commentators ignore, is better explained by the combination of separate texts, a non-supernatural progression of a religion. It is fascinating, and gives a glimpse into the history of that time. To me it is more likely not supernatural. Still interesting though.

not too much to commend this one it seems.

Ecumenical study bible, lol. No thanks. I dont need a Muslim who believes that Jesus was replaced on the cross, that Moses' sister and Jesus' mother were the same person, or that God has no son to inform my thinking.

Wow this review never left the tarmac with that tissue paper.😧

I'm also not a big fan of the speculative hypotheses about the "actual " authorship of some of the books. I agree that it is all based on questionable (at best) criteria.

Sbl scholars are also true fheads.😊

😂😂😂😂😂😂So, you admit that you are adding more and more and more to the text !!!! Well future generation-x will never know the real part of the textst !!!!!

Every time I hear something from Documentary Hypothesis People I'm shocked how goofy their statements are.

Are all those figurines considered idols?

Wait, people still think Noah or the pre-flood patriarch existed? And want to be taken seriously?

Sbl for Morans 😢

What a master piece of the devils children 😅

God protect the church of you demons 😮

Thanks. Saved me $40.00. I like NKJV. Grew up on KJV. JEDP is dead. Those scholars keep building on faulty foundatio. There should be no debate on dating of books in New testament. All of them arr written before 70AD. 1, 2, Timothy, Titus, and Hebrews are all from the work of Paul. Revelation was before 70 AD, not 95AD. All gospels were before 70AD. The scholars who ptoduce bibles like this keep reading and building on there own falsehoods!

Stick to the authorized version and flee these demons

This sbl is even good for the devil 🤘 and his followers 😅

The devil will bless you 🎉

The devil must be very proud of you and your sbl scholars😂

From the get go- let me say that Satan has his versions. I believe in the (received text), KJV bible and it's the only one I trust. I have read the bible since I was old enough to read. I have no interest in your SBL bible, plus I will not subscribe nor will I give you a thumbs up. May the God of heaven bless you and help you to find the truth.