Featured The HarperCollins Study Bible: New Revised Standard Version

I did not like the first RSV, so wouldn't expect to like a "New" RSV.

I don't really know anything about it, so I looked online for info.
From Bible Gateway

I see they kept the "young woman" in Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.
Compared to RSV, Isaiah 7:14: Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Imman′u-el.

As for the Study Bible, a study Bible from a secular publisher and the National Council of Churches is mostly a non-starter for me. Most of the names of the contributors mean nothing to me, but where they are from and/or with whom they associated suggests they are probably plucked from the liberal side of the theological spectrum.

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

 

Here are a few quotes plucked from the "Look Inside" feature at Amazon.

"Modern historical scholarship has customarily identified three main sources of Genesis--the pentateuchal sources "J" ("Jahwist" or "Yahwist," so named for its characteristic use of the divine name YHWH, "Lord"; see 4:26), "E" ("Elohist," for its use of the divine name Elohim, "God"), and "P" (or "Priestly" source), dated respectively to the tenth (or ninth), eighth, and sixth centuries B.C.E. But these alleged sources are orchestratd so skillfully and meaningfully by a later editor that the book's true literary magic arises not from the sources in their original state--if such can be known--but from their assemblage in a unified composition. The notes that follow presuppose most of the customary source divisions but, for all practical purposes, as preliterary traditions." pages 3-4

"The story depicts a flat earth and curved celestial dome surrounded above and below by primordial waters. The universe is conceived from the vantage point of earth, its center." page 6

"Both man and woman are created in the image of God, who is beyond gender or comprises both." page 7

 

I thought the documentary hypothesis was starting to fall out of favor even among the lberals?

 

Remember, Harper Collins is one of the four entities that holds a British Crown copyright on the KJV.

 

Some people seemta link anything from Harper Collins as evil.

 

I have it. Only as a study reference. Would I recommend it? Generally not. I also have the NWT study Bible too.

 

Actually the NRSV is better than the RSV in a few places: Genesis 1:16. Romans 9:5. It still shares problems: Isaiah 7:14. Hebrews 1:3.

 

Perhaps your comment refers to mine above. I do not think of Harper Collins in terms of good or evil. I think of them as a huge publishing conglomeration. My point was that "Harper Collins" in the name of a commentary does not draw my interest as something I would likely want to buy.

As far as publishing, Harper Collins is a profitable business and will look in all directions they see as profitable, which includes the Christian market. I do not see that as inherently evil, just normal capitalism. Among the Harper Collins family is HarperCollins Christian Publishing, Inc, which includes Thomas Nelson and Zondervan, names familiar to most of us, probably. Bible Gateway, which I use regularly, is owned by Zondervan. Do "some people" think Harper Collins is "evil"? I don't know. Do I? No. Will I rush to buy a study bible with their imprint? No. I will be skeptical. (Also the NCCC connection doesn't help.)

Perhaps that this is published under "HarperCollins" rather than Thomas Nelson or Zondervan indicates they are directing it toward a certain market?

 

Bought it for $10.00 from a JW aquaintance many years ago (in the 1990's). You can download the PDF. They have a new 2013 edition of their translation. Which completely omits John 7:53 - John 8:11 and omits the long ending of Mark 16:9-20.

 

I see.

But I don't use study Bibles anyway. The "study" is just an opinion, and I have an opinion as well, so why fool with them?

 

Sometimes it is useful to understand a view not held, if an explanation of that view can be found.

 

The main reason became so popular was that it was one of the first translations to get into gender inclusive renderings, and also that its notes and Introductions reflects liberal scholarship of the worst kind!

 

really good for Introductions, articles, supplemental study materials!

 

Do they still have their Greek interlinear that did call Jesus the lord and God of me for Thomas?

 

I prefer commentaries to "study Bibles," with the opinion and commentary clearly and distinctly separate from the Bible text itself.