A review of the fifth edition of the New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha in the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), ISBN 9780190276072. This hardback features an attractive 9.5 to 10 point font designed by 2K/Denmark. It has a sewn binding, lies flat when open, and was printed by Royal Jongbloed in the Netherlands.

The notes, book introductions, and essays are written from a naturalistic perspective, which holds that the Bible is a purely human production, containing contradictory and inaccurate information. Like earlier editions, it includes the Apocryphal books in a section between the Old and New Testaments.

Contents

00:00 Details, 4 charts (dimensions, margins, layout, font, paper ...)
00:47 Size compared with the 1st Edition of the same Bible
01:01 Size compared to the Cambridge NRSV Reference Edition with Apocrypha
01:27 Page format
02:18 Page dimensions
02:47 Margins
03:03 Font size and line spacing
03:52 The text is line matched
04:40 Format and font in the page-bottom notes
05:08 Paper qualities - thickness, color, texture, opacity ...
05:57 Uneven print darkness (print non-uniformity)
06:14 A typical book introduction
07:18 There are no headings in the text
07:53 The words of Christ are in black!
08:10 New Testament quotations of the Old Testament are in quotation marks, and sometimes indented
08:49 A typical in-text black-and-white map
09:20 Essays, Tables, Bibliography, Glossary, Index
10:14 Is 2 Esdras in the Septuagint? Yes and no. It depends.
10:54 A broken reference -- the table on page 2237
11:25 Do Orthodox canons of Scripture include 2 Esdras? Yes and no
12:12 The essay on Textual Criticism -- Masoretic Text (MT) versus Hebrew Bible (Heb.)
12:59 New Testament text types -- no mention of the Coherence Based Genealogical Method (CBGM)
13:48 John 1.18, God the Only Son - does the NRSV translate it poorly?
14:42 Essays on interpretation - the Bible as a self-contradictory anthology
15:40 Was the 5th edition rushed into print? A typo - the first of several
16:37 The essayist says the NRSV translation is not accurate
17:49 Did the essayist intend to say that the author of Daniel meant to maintain the status of Jeremiah and his prophecies?
18:34 A claim that Paul blatantly misread Genesis
19:19 The remaining essays
20:45 The Early History of Irael [sic] -- more evidence of a rush to print?
21:24 A timeline
21:52 Chronological table of rulers
22:21 Weights and measures
22:26 Time
22:46 Tables of parallel texts
23:36 Differences in chapter & verse numbering, English vs Hebrew
23:45 Translations of Ancient Texts -- more evidence of a rush to print
24:45 The glossary
24:57 Index to the Study Materials
25:21 The beautiful Oxford maps!
26:11 A look at the stitching
26:30 The map index
26:43 Another look at the stitching
27:05 It lies flat from the title page to the maps
27:35 The copyright page -- 2K/Denmark, Royal Jongbloed
27:56 The table of contents
29:13 The introduction to the Pentateuch
29:18 The introduction to Genesis
29:48 A close-up look at the font
30:55 Font compared to that in the 2nd edition of the same Bible
31:45 Font compared to that in the Cambridge NRSV Reference Bible with the Apocrypha
32:48 The note at Isaiah 7.14
33:55 The note at Isaiah 52.13-53.12
34:46 The introduction to Daniel - a piece of historical fiction?
35:24 The introduction to 2 Peter - written about 125 A.D.?
36:04 A rare example of where lines aren't matched
36:47 The notes on Galatians 1.1 and 1.4. "Apostle" and "atonement"
39:06 Summary
41:12 Deuteronomy 32.8 and the NRSV's war against men
41:53 2 Peter 2.1 destructive "opinions"? I prefer "heresies".
42:15 The translation continuum -- 18 translations arranged according to how "literal" they are

свернуть