Author Topic: Study Bibles  (Read 625 times)

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 42405
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Study Bibles
« on: March 26, 2021, 03:10:31 PM »
I have a fairly large collection of "study" Bibles, but neither of the Lutheran Study Bibles.


I believe that the first one I got was The Jerusalem Bible when I was in Jr. High. The KJV Thompson Chain Reference was used at Concordia, Portland. I've never liked the KJV language, so got the Thompson Chain Reference in NIV when it came out. Other study Bibles in my library.


The New Catholic Study Bible, Jerome Edition, TEV
The Learning Bible, CEV
NIV Serendipity Bible for Study Groups
The Access Bible, NRSV
The Harper Collins Study Bible, NRSV
The Interpreter's Study Bible, NRSV
The Orthodox Study Bible, based on NKJV
The Jewish Annotated New Testament, NRSV
The Jewish Study Bible, JPS
The Torah: A Modern Commentary, JPS
The Haftarah Commentary, JPS
The New Oxford Annotated Bible, NRSV
The CEB Study Bible

The Oxford Annotated Bible (first edition) was the preferred one at seminary. I now use the third edition. I just checked and there's a fifth edition: "new and expanded." I'm not a big fan of the NRSV translation. I thought that the NIV flowed better - especially for public reading. I liked the TNIV when it came out with more inclusive language and used that for worship services, until I shifted to CEV, then to CEB. Now the 2011 NIV pretty much follows the TNIV. However, it lacks the Apocrypha, which I get whenever possible. Bot the CEV and CEB are available with Apocrypha. CEV is a bit too simplified; but many people in the pews are not too biblical literate. My "go to" translation and study helps is the CEB Study Bible with Apocrypha. However, my detailed study is in the original languages without any study helps.

One major help of the study Bibles is to help give an overview of an entire book. Too often we only look at a particular tree without seeing the whole forest. Someone suggested that exegeting a text is like dissecting a rose. We will much better understand all the little details of the parts of the rose, but we've lost the beauty of the whole thing together. Understanding an outline of a book and how a particular pericope fits into the whole is essential for understanding the text. Similarly, while a dictionary can help understand a particular word, it's only within the sentence and paragraph can one really discern the meaning of the word within that context.

I would often use the study helps to write brief introductions to the Sunday readings. Sort of like guests on late night TV shows setting up the clip of their latest movie. Often the set up is necessary to understand what we are seeing and hearing.
"The church … had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

Weedon

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 11372
    • View Profile
    • My Blog
Re: Study Bibles
« Reply #1 on: March 26, 2021, 03:14:25 PM »
Thank you, Brian, for attempting to save the original intent of Marie’s thread. I should do the same on Mary.
William Weedon, Assistant Pastor
St. Paul Lutheran Church, Hamel IL
Catechist on LPR Podcast: The Word of the Lord Endures Forever
A Daily, Verse-by-Verse Bible Study with the Church, Past and Present
www.thewordendures.org

+Verbum Domini Manet in Aeternum

D. Engebretson

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 4335
    • View Profile
Re: Study Bibles
« Reply #2 on: March 26, 2021, 05:29:03 PM »
As I noted on the other thread, having a variety of study bibles from other traditions gives one a quick overview of the different ways certain verses or sections of scripture are interpreted.  I have a study Bible from the Orthodox tradition, the Reformed tradition and the Roman Catholic tradition, not to mention more generic ones similar to those listed by Pr. Stoffregen. For example, on John 3:16 the New Geneva Study Bible clearly supports their teaching of limited atonement.
Pastor Don Engebretson
St. Peter Lutheran Church of Polar (Antigo) WI

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 42405
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Study Bibles
« Reply #3 on: March 26, 2021, 08:57:11 PM »
As I noted on the other thread, having a variety of study bibles from other traditions gives one a quick overview of the different ways certain verses or sections of scripture are interpreted.  I have a study Bible from the Orthodox tradition, the Reformed tradition and the Roman Catholic tradition, not to mention more generic ones similar to those listed by Pr. Stoffregen. For example, on John 3:16 the New Geneva Study Bible clearly supports their teaching of limited atonement.


In a zoom discussion about the importance of grace, Christ, faith in Lutheran hermeneutics, I suggested that exegesis is meant to approach the text with as few biases as possible. We don't want our prejudices (both good and bad) to influence what the text is saying to us. However, in preaching, we certainly should use Lutheran biases, like Law and Gospel, salvation by grace, in proclaiming Jesus to the folks.


By looking at how others, outside our tradition, comment on texts can help us see that our way may not be the only way. (Of course we will usually conclude that our way is the better way :) )
"The church … had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

George Rahn

  • ALPB Forum Regular
  • ***
  • Posts: 148
    • View Profile
Re: Study Bibles
« Reply #4 on: March 26, 2021, 10:34:34 PM »
As I noted on the other thread, having a variety of study bibles from other traditions gives one a quick overview of the different ways certain verses or sections of scripture are interpreted.  I have a study Bible from the Orthodox tradition, the Reformed tradition and the Roman Catholic tradition, not to mention more generic ones similar to those listed by Pr. Stoffregen. For example, on John 3:16 the New Geneva Study Bible clearly supports their teaching of limited atonement.


In a zoom discussion about the importance of grace, Christ, faith in Lutheran hermeneutics, I suggested that exegesis is meant to approach the text with as few biases as possible. We don't want our prejudices (both good and bad) to influence what the text is saying to us. However, in preaching, we certainly should use Lutheran biases, like Law and Gospel, salvation by grace, in proclaiming Jesus to the folks.


By looking at how others, outside our tradition, comment on texts can help us see that our way may not be the only way. (Of course we will usually conclude that our way is the better way :) )

The law-Gospel hermeneutic, is the most bias-free method for interpreting scripture as Christian scripture, imo.   I don’t necessarily see this hermeneutic as a Lutheran one, however.  I do believe the “Lutherans” rediscovered it in the 16th century.  It had been gradually covered up almost from the beginning of the Christian mission, a natural danger as natural as the gradual cover up of the truth of the Gospel had been in the Galatian church.  The law-Gospel hermeneutic would be gradually covered over again as the Age of Reason (17th-18th centuries) evolved.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2021, 10:38:06 PM by George Rahn »

Harvey_Mozolak

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 4685
    • View Profile
    • line and letter lettuce
Re: Study Bibles
« Reply #5 on: March 27, 2021, 01:40:11 PM »
Luth Study Bible presents any number of interesting challenges to what is proper commentary and what is opinion or pious or personal hope or conjecture.   

p. 2120 note the percentages in the article; perhaps the 80% figure might have some documentation but where did the theologians get access to the second silly guess 47%?   After all, is sin fun or not and is fun, sin or not? 

Exodus 7. 17… text says the Lord says he will turn the Nile into blood but the footnote commentary is quite assured there is no chemical change but rather due to red colored algae….  Is there a cross reference to later events at Cana, of course not but why not?  Not Old Testament Literalists, why not?  Just interesting.

The “New Woman” comments on p. 2067 sound less like a historic observation as a prep for attacking any modern-day feminism, commentary or application jump.  Sophomoric.

and the topic “Men and Women in the Church” is less about that and more about contrasting them than relating them to the church.
Harvey S. Mozolak
my poetry blog is listed below:

http://lineandletterlettuce.blogspot.com

Mike Bennett

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 1031
    • View Profile
Re: Study Bibles
« Reply #6 on: March 28, 2021, 02:57:48 PM »
I have a fairly large collection of "study" Bibles, but neither of the Lutheran Study Bibles.


I believe that the first one I got was The Jerusalem Bible when I was in Jr. High. The KJV Thompson Chain Reference was used at Concordia, Portland. I've never liked the KJV language, so got the Thompson Chain Reference in NIV when it came out. Other study Bibles in my library.


The New Catholic Study Bible, Jerome Edition, TEV
The Learning Bible, CEV
NIV Serendipity Bible for Study Groups
The Access Bible, NRSV
The Harper Collins Study Bible, NRSV
The Interpreter's Study Bible, NRSV
The Orthodox Study Bible, based on NKJV
The Jewish Annotated New Testament, NRSV
The Jewish Study Bible, JPS
The Torah: A Modern Commentary, JPS
The Haftarah Commentary, JPS
The New Oxford Annotated Bible, NRSV
The CEB Study Bible


The Didache Bible, from Ignatius Press, does a nice job tying Scripture to doctrine, with its study notes based on and cross-referenced to the Catechism of the Catholic Churce.
“What peace can there be, so long as the many whoredoms and sorceries of your mother Jezebel continue?”  2 Kings 9:22

mariemeyer

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 4287
    • View Profile
Re: Study Bibles
« Reply #7 on: March 29, 2021, 10:54:37 AM »
Luth Study Bible presents any number of interesting challenges to what is proper commentary and what is opinion or pious or personal hope or conjecture.   

p. 2120 note the percentages in the article; perhaps the 80% figure might have some documentation but where did the theologians get access to the second silly guess 47%?   After all, is sin fun or not and is fun, sin or not? 

Exodus 7. 17… text says the Lord says he will turn the Nile into blood but the footnote commentary is quite assured there is no chemical change but rather due to red colored algae….  Is there a cross reference to later events at Cana, of course not but why not?  Not Old Testament Literalists, why not?  Just interesting.

The “New Woman” comments on p. 2067 sound less like a historic observation as a prep for attacking any modern-day feminism, commentary or application jump.  Sophomoric.

and the topic “Men and Women in the Church” is less about that and more about contrasting them than relating them to the church.

The "New Woman" comments on page 2067 are one of several "study notes' directed at women today.  The unstated assumption is that there are feminists lurking within the LCMS determined to usurp male authority in the church.   The message to a woman using this study bible is clear, "Do not be like those "new women" at Ephesus who were usurping male authority on an ethical, theological and missiological plane.

Among the more confusing aspects of The Lutheran Study Bible is that "wife" and "women" are listed as Biblical Topics while neither "husband" nor "men" are mentioned as Biblical Topics."  Are we to assume that the 24 scholars and the 16 men who wrote the study notes know God's will for husbands and men; therefore there was no need to include list them as Biblical Tpoics.  The message is clear, knowledge of  God's will for women and men has been given to men.  They are God's designated authoritative teachers  of God's will for women.

Nothing in TLSB study notes gives attention to Genesis two and the truth that there is no man without woman just as there is no woman without man. IOW, both are Biblical topics.  Rather than regarding God's creation of woman from and for man as revelation of man's need and God's loving gracious response to man's created need, the Study Bible interprets how God created woman as a revelation of man's authority over woman in a structured order of creation.

Rather than a theocentric interpretation of how God created woman (Genesis two), TLSB interprets God's work of creating woman as a revelation of man's assigned position of authority in relation to woman.  IOW, God's work of providing man the helper man needed if man was to fulfill God's will and purpose for man is about man's position of authority in relation to woman in the church and home.   

Marie Meyer

                                               
 

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 16829
    • View Profile
Re: Study Bibles
« Reply #8 on: March 29, 2021, 11:15:01 AM »
Luth Study Bible presents any number of interesting challenges to what is proper commentary and what is opinion or pious or personal hope or conjecture.   

p. 2120 note the percentages in the article; perhaps the 80% figure might have some documentation but where did the theologians get access to the second silly guess 47%?   After all, is sin fun or not and is fun, sin or not? 

Exodus 7. 17… text says the Lord says he will turn the Nile into blood but the footnote commentary is quite assured there is no chemical change but rather due to red colored algae….  Is there a cross reference to later events at Cana, of course not but why not?  Not Old Testament Literalists, why not?  Just interesting.

The “New Woman” comments on p. 2067 sound less like a historic observation as a prep for attacking any modern-day feminism, commentary or application jump.  Sophomoric.

and the topic “Men and Women in the Church” is less about that and more about contrasting them than relating them to the church.

The "New Woman" comments on page 2067 are one of several "study notes' directed at women today.  The unstated assumption is that there are feminists lurking within the LCMS determined to usurp male authority in the church.   The message to a woman using this study bible is clear, "Do not be like those "new women" at Ephesus who were usurping male authority on an ethical, theological and missiological plane.

Among the more confusing aspects of The Lutheran Study Bible is that "wife" and "women" are listed as Biblical Topics while neither "husband" nor "men" are mentioned as Biblical Topics."  Are we to assume that the 24 scholars and the 16 men who wrote the study notes know God's will for husbands and men; therefore there was no need to include list them as Biblical Tpoics.  The message is clear, knowledge of  God's will for women and men has been given to men.  They are God's designated authoritative teachers  of God's will for women.

Nothing in TLSB study notes gives attention to Genesis two and the truth that there is no man without woman just as there is no woman without man. IOW, both are Biblical topics.  Rather than regarding God's creation of woman from and for man as revelation of man's need and God's loving gracious response to man's created need, the Study Bible interprets how God created woman as a revelation of man's authority over woman in a structured order of creation.

Rather than a theocentric interpretation of how God created woman (Genesis two), TLSB interprets God's work of creating woman as a revelation of man's assigned position of authority in relation to woman.  IOW, God's work of providing man the helper man needed if man was to fulfill God's will and purpose for man is about man's position of authority in relation to woman in the church and home.   

Marie Meyer
                                   
Seems like they follow the lead of the Bible they're commenting on. Why is God for the fatherless and the widow and not the motherless and widower? Are we to assume that God doesn't care about them? Of course not! Why does the Bible give genealogies in terms of fathers and make special reference whenever the mother is noteworthy? Why do we have a hymn For All the Faithful Women (#855) but no corresponding hymn about men? We could ask such questions all day.

There is such a thing as man without woman. God gave the command not to eat the forbidden fruit to a man when as yet there was no woman.

The comments on the "New Woman" come as part of the introduction to I Timothy and give valuable background to some of the topics St. Paul addresses in that letter concerning women.

Rather than guess at the unstated assumptions behind the notes, why not come up with better notes and share them here?

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 42405
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Study Bibles
« Reply #9 on: March 29, 2021, 02:14:21 PM »
Luth Study Bible presents any number of interesting challenges to what is proper commentary and what is opinion or pious or personal hope or conjecture.   

p. 2120 note the percentages in the article; perhaps the 80% figure might have some documentation but where did the theologians get access to the second silly guess 47%?   After all, is sin fun or not and is fun, sin or not? 

Exodus 7. 17… text says the Lord says he will turn the Nile into blood but the footnote commentary is quite assured there is no chemical change but rather due to red colored algae….  Is there a cross reference to later events at Cana, of course not but why not?  Not Old Testament Literalists, why not?  Just interesting.

The “New Woman” comments on p. 2067 sound less like a historic observation as a prep for attacking any modern-day feminism, commentary or application jump.  Sophomoric.

and the topic “Men and Women in the Church” is less about that and more about contrasting them than relating them to the church.

The "New Woman" comments on page 2067 are one of several "study notes' directed at women today.  The unstated assumption is that there are feminists lurking within the LCMS determined to usurp male authority in the church.   The message to a woman using this study bible is clear, "Do not be like those "new women" at Ephesus who were usurping male authority on an ethical, theological and missiological plane.

Among the more confusing aspects of The Lutheran Study Bible is that "wife" and "women" are listed as Biblical Topics while neither "husband" nor "men" are mentioned as Biblical Topics."  Are we to assume that the 24 scholars and the 16 men who wrote the study notes know God's will for husbands and men; therefore there was no need to include list them as Biblical Tpoics.  The message is clear, knowledge of  God's will for women and men has been given to men.  They are God's designated authoritative teachers  of God's will for women.

Nothing in TLSB study notes gives attention to Genesis two and the truth that there is no man without woman just as there is no woman without man. IOW, both are Biblical topics.  Rather than regarding God's creation of woman from and for man as revelation of man's need and God's loving gracious response to man's created need, the Study Bible interprets how God created woman as a revelation of man's authority over woman in a structured order of creation.

Rather than a theocentric interpretation of how God created woman (Genesis two), TLSB interprets God's work of creating woman as a revelation of man's assigned position of authority in relation to woman.  IOW, God's work of providing man the helper man needed if man was to fulfill God's will and purpose for man is about man's position of authority in relation to woman in the church and home.   

Marie Meyer


While the interpretation above takes "helper" to be a subordinate position, most of the time that עֵזֶר (`ēzer) is used it refers to God/LORD being our help(er) (Ex 18:4; Dt 33:7, 26, 29; Ps 20:2; 33:20; 70:5; 115:9, 10, 11; 121:1, 2; 124:8; 146:5). This indicates that the one who needs the help(er) is deficient in some ways; and that the helper is the superior one, e.g., the LORD.


It could be, among other things, Genesis 2 shows that the 'adam, is not God. He requires a helper fit for him in order to create life. Whereas God needs no helper.
"The church … had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]