Another excellent review. I do very much appreciate all the care, attention and thought you put into your Bible reviews and for the very calm and gentle but clear way in which you deliver them. May God richly bless you and protect you and your work this Christmastide 2021.
I've used this study Bible several times. I'm not sure if such a free translation needs a study Bible (but the NLT has one, so I guess the REB can have one, too). That said, the notes are fairly good (for an academic perspective) and refreshingly concise compared to similar editions such as the 3rd-5th editions of the New Oxford Annotated Bible. It's also a pretty good reading Bible thanks to its reasonable proportions and the generous and pleasant font. The REB's greatest merit is its literary quality; therefore, any edition that keeps it easy to read in long sittings is arguably a good edition.
Thanks for the comment! The REB certainly is a pleasure to read, though I find that when I have a choice, I pick up the NEB instead. Have you spent much time with the NLT? If so, would you say that the NLT is more literal or less literal than the REB?
@@RGrantJones I've tried reading from the NEB a number of times, but I find myself agreeing with T.S. Eliot that the English style is often lacking. Eliot used the example of Mat. 7.6: "[D]o not feed your pearls to pigs" (NEB), and the revisers seemed to agree with him on one point: "There is all the difference in the world between saying that pigs do not appreciate the value of pearls, and saying, what the youngest and the most illiterate among us know, that they cannot be nourished on pearls." Accordingly, they changed "feed" to "throw" in the REB (a modification that offers a more direct translation of βάλητε, too). www.bible-researcher.com/neb-eliot.html The NLT1 was not all that literal, and I'd argue that the REB better captured the sense of the passages than it did. The more recent editions of the NLT strike me as somewhat more literal (and more bland) than the REB, but they seem to miss the mark in capturing the tone of the original texts when compared to the REB. Granted, I have not done extensive comparisons between the two since I'm not all that fond of the NLT (and thus don't own a print copy), and the REB text is not readily available online for easy comparisons.
@@MAMoreno - thank you for the response. Very interesting quote from Eliot. I may have to examine the two (NEB and REB) alongside each other to see if I can convince myself the REB is superior. (No doubt it's more literal.) Your report that the NLT may be more literal than the REB gives me hope that I'll be able to discern the translators' textual sources, and so score it per the approach I outlined in the 'Four-Dimensional Perspective' video.
@@MAMoreno The hardcover edition was for universities/Grad schools. Cambridge produced a "reader's edition" and a lectionary version. The REB is moves up to the Nestle-Aland manuscript while the NEB was translated from RVG Tasker's much older work. So, that's why you might have felt a little uncomfortable.
Dear Grant, I enjoy all of your different bible versions reviews. It is meticulous and scholarly and balanced. As I mentioned to you earlier, if possible please do a review on the LSV ( literal standard version ). So that I can know in it's entirety of it's effectiveness in conveying God's word. I'm requesting you because I know your reviews are professional and excellent.
Can you do a video comparing the text of NRSV & REB? It will be very interesting because both are ecumenical and published at 1989. It will be interesting to see the British scholarship efforts and the American scholarship efforts to create an accurate and scholarly Bible translation.
To me, it’s a tragedy that the REB was not marketed by its publishers on anything like the scale that the NRSV was. Not because I am English - and in fact there is an anglicised version of the NRSV - I do prefer the REB. It was also a shame the the Church of England in its liturgy has chosen to use the NRSV, though the REB is one of the permitted versions to use in services. The REB is sadly neglected, which is a terrible shame as there are those who believe it to be the most “literary “ version. It does have a small but loyal following. Unfortunately as it doesn’t have a “heavyweight” American publisher behind it, that’s not going to change anytime soon.
Thanks for this highly informative and comprehensive review. I already have the standard (non-annotated) REB hardback, the translation of which which I do like. It seems that Marcus Borg (dec'd) seemed to pick up on many of the ideas and viewpoints you mentioned in the notes. However, here in the UK, that edition has suffered from a fairly poor binding (so won't lie very flat) and the text is an 8 point greyish colour which gives poor contrast. It is best only read in good light. But thanks to your review, it now looks like the study version might be a better edition (assuming the UK printers got it right this time). I have ordered used from ebay.
I bought this study Bible (with Apocrypha) used in paperback. The copy that I have obviously received some hard and continuous use, but the paperback ed., despite that, has held up so far as binging is concerned.
Meticulous review. It is sufficient to note their approach is biblical criticism (analytical). This is not a Bible for the congregation and not for a less well educated minister either. More similar to the New Oxford Annotated Bible series. The version is thought for thought(dynamic equivalence) and is not meant to stand up to versions which are more word for word (formal equivalence) in precision. It is however more smoothly readable.
Articles written from a perspective that "does not give credence to anything supernatural" (16:00). That, and the "BCE's" in the footnotes, should tell you just about all you need to know about the current state of Biblical exegesis in Britain. Superb review, as usual. Thank you.
@@hetrogamr84 - I wasn't aware of that. Do you know if Jehovah's Witnesses have a theological reason for using B.C.E. and C.E. instead of B.C. and A.D., or are they just going with the flow?
@@lifegracefaith - no doubt they're Arians. I haven't examined the NWT, but surely it includes expressions such as 'the Lord Jesus' and 'God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ'. If so, it seems very odd that they would object to using 'A.D.' But perhaps they do so because they understand that _we_ use A.D. to show our belief Christ's divinity? Puzzling.
I'm sorry, but you simply do not know what you are talking about. I have a copy of this book. The translation was done way back in the late 80s and published in 1990. However, the articles and the notes were done completely separately in the version published by Oxford University Press in New York. These appear to be all done by AMERICAN Scholars. All the ones I have googled definitely are. Whoever heard of a Brit called Carroll Stuhlmueller?, or Gene M Tucker?, or Martha Himmelfarb? I could go on.. From the USA, every one!
Thank you for this in depth review and I will rule it out as a purchase, though like you, it reads well and I had a copy that I lost in my move to a nursing home. I must also add that you have given the best reviews of the various editions and you answer the theological questions that I would raise about each version. How do you feel about certain editions, like the Ignatius Revised Standard, 2nd edition, dropping certain passages and citing: not in ( blankety blank) ancient text? I would rather they print said verses in some other type and cite that said passage is not in the Greek texts rather than eliminating them altogether.
Thanks for the comment and question! I agree with you -- I would rather see doubtful passages printed in the text itself in a different font or within brackets. As a fallback, they should at least appear in footnotes.
Thank you for another great review! I was mostly interested in your opinions on this translation, though I also learned that I like this study Bible's way of annotating -- the notes don't seem to overwhelm the text of scripture yet they still look large enough to read. While I don't think this particular study Bible is for me, I still find myself intrigued by this translation. What I've read of it seems wonderful for reading aloud. I'm grateful to know from your review that it's probably not the best translation to use for personal study, but I think it would still be a wonderful translation for devotional reading. Thanks again!
Thanks for another excellent review. Do you have any plans to do David Bentley Hart's New Testament translation or Robert Alter's Hebrew Bible? I'm intensely curious about them, but haven't yet pulled the trigger, and I'd very much like to hear your thoughts on either of them.
Nick - yes, I plan to review David Bentley Hart's New Testament, perhaps early next year. I'm not familiar with Alter's Hebrew Bible, and since I know essentially no Hebrew, I may not be the best person to tackle it.
The REB removes it to the end of John's gospel. The footnote reads, "This passage, which in most editions of the New Testament is printed in the text of John, 7:53-8:11, has no fixed place in our witnesses. Some of them do not contain it at all. Some place it after Luke 21:38, others after John 7:36, or 7:52, or 21:24."
Having reviewed this version and it’s predecessor, the New English Bible, which do you believe is more accurate, and which one do you prefer to read? Also wonder how the Modern English Version compares to the NEB and REB?
Thanks for the question, Alan. I haven't carefully examined the NEB and REB side-by-side for accuracy, but my general impression is that the REB is more accurate. I prefer to read the NEB. The MEV is a more literal translation than either the REB or NEB. Its New Testament is based on the Textus Receptus, while the NEB and REB are informed by the critical Greek New Testament editions available when they were published.
I've been recently hearing some folks using the phrase apocrypha & deuterocanonicle books as different things. & Googling the matter isn't getting me anywhere. I was under the impression that the phrase deuterocanonicle books was simply the phrase Catholics prefer. Where as you might come across as unaccepting by using the word apocrypha. Don't these two things mean the same thing? Help a brotha out..
They're not quite the same, in my understanding. The Apocrypha is a wider set and can include almost any book outside the 66. 'Deuterocanonical' refers to the apocryphal books of the Old Testament that are included in Roman Catholic Bibles alongside the 39 books of the Jewish canon. There are fewer Deuterocanonical books than apocryphal ones. The Orthodox use a different term for the books they include that aren't among the 39: anaginoskomena. There are more books in the anaginoskomena than there are Deuterocanonical ones.
I'm happy you were able to see it. I've been wrestling with the new Beta uploader, and for a while it didn't seem likely this video would ever be published.
You can get the REB in a "reader's version" (reference bible) from Cambridge University Press. Cambridge and Oxford have merged together. You can buy the lectionary version from there as well.
I wouldn't buy this Bible because you tampered with the translations and changed the words from the original version. God doesn't want anyone adding or changing his word Rev.22:18; For I testify unto every man that heareth the word of the prophecy of this book, if any man should add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of this book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the thing that are written in this book. You can find this in Deuteronomy 4:2; Deu.12:22; Prov.30:6;
Only "holier-than-thou jerks" make such comments YOU 'rattlesnake'...YOU will have "earned" your "eternal abode" in everlasting PERDITION...congratulations. Some 'good advice' in line with that from our LORD: "...Judge ye not...lest the judgements YOU pass on others be the judgements pass on yourself...again, YOU 'rattlesnake'...like it or lump it...and I'll presume YOU don't like it...'Mr. Holier-than-thou'...". 😇.
Slight correction to my earlier comment to "@craigmouldey2339" : "...Judge ye not...lest the judgements YOU pass on others be the judgements YOU pass on yourself...again...'Mr. Holier-than-thou'...". 😅.
