This Bible can be purchased here www.christianbook.com/nrsv-reference-bible-with-apocrypha-hardcover/9781108419147/pd/419147 and here www.amazon.com/NRSV-Reference-Bible-Apocrypha-NR560/dp/1108419143 . For the more expensive editions in leather, see evangelicalbible.com/product-category/nrsv/ .
I appreciate the thorough review! I'm considering getting one and this is the best review I've found concerning the actual content of this particular Bible vs. focusing on all the beautiful leather covers (which do look nice!)
I have found that a lot of Bible reviewers spend the bulk of their time ogling at the leather and paper, and not actually looking at the contents of either. This channel is the exception rather than the rule.
I have just ordered the brown cowhide/edge-lined version of this (without apocrypha) with a 34% saving. I was influenced by this review chiefly (for the content especially). This is to make up for a very poor ESV Crossway Wide Margin purchase decision that I made recently (that’s been given away now). I might buy the NRSV apocrypha separately one day. This NRSV Reference completes my collection (NIV Clarion, TBS Westminster Reference KJV and Cambridge BCP Enlarged edition in French Moroccan.)
I was wondering, whether the Oxford NRSV with Apocrypha Edition is better or the Cambridge one? Also, Cambridge one has 800 less pages for some reason.
The Oxford is a study Bible, so there are notes on most pages. That's the reason for the difference in page count. The Oxford also has better line spacing, so I find reading it more pleasant. But it is much less portable than the Cambridge. Out of curiosity, I compared this Cambridge NRSV to the Allan NRSV1, which has the same books as the Oxford NRSV, but no study notes. The Allan has 927 Old Testament pages, the Cambridge 868. For the Deuterocanonicals, Allan = 281, Cambridge = 263. For the New Testament, Allan = 282, Cambridge = 262. So the total is Allan = 1490, Cambridge = 1393.
Since you mentioned that audience interest is a factor in determining whether or not you review the 1986 NIV, then I would certainly voice my interest, sir. Out of curiosity, what is your opinion on the NIV as a translation? It seems to be one of the most loved and hated of the English Bibles simultaneously. Thank you again for another great and detailed review, Dr. Jones.
Thanks for letting me know that old NIV is of interest. My opinion of the NIV has changed over the years. I liked it quite a lot back in the 1980s, but over time, after hearing again and again from various speakers about untrustworthy translations of specific passages, I used it less and less. When I learned Greek, it seemed to me that the critics had a good case. But these days, I'm warming to the NIV again. I wouldn't recommend it as a primary translation, but it does provide useful interpretations. I don't like the NIV's English style as well as that in other dynamic translations, like the New English Bible, Revised English Bible, Jerusalem Bible, or its revisions. But I think the NIV translators offer a perspective worthy of consideration as we read and interpret the text. I don't have much experience with the 2011 NIV. I scored its "literalness" in 200 New Testament verses, but I did it using Bible Gateway online. I don't own a 2011 NIV. That said, having used the NRSV over the years, I find most of the gender inclusive language tricks don't bother me much. The experts say that "brothers and sisters" is a legitimate translation of _adelphoi._ Using the plural when the original is singular isn't as literal as it could be, but in the cases I've examined it doesn't seem to change the sense of the passage. Verses like 2 Peter 1.9 in the NRSV are troublesome, however; and I'd have to examine the 2011 NIV in depth to get a sense for the degree to which its inclusive approach has distorted the meaning. It would have been better, I think, to have retained the older gender inclusive understanding of words like "he", "him", "his", "man", and "men", rather than to redefine them as exclusively masculine and then to complain that our language excludes the feminine! I may review an NIV in a few weeks. I've thought showing the old "Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible."
R. Grant Jones Thank you for the detailed reply and information. Your conclusions make good sense. The “Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible” would be fascinating to see as well. All your reviews are superb, though, so the book in question is often irrelevant! Thank you again for supplying content to bookworms and Bible enthusiasts.
Thanks for that question, Pastor Brian. It's a hard one! I think I might end Part 2 of my KJV vs ESV video by saying, "If you're wondering which one I think is better -- happily, I don't have to choose between them. Each has merits, and I think I'll just keep right on using both." But to answer your hypothetical question, if I could have only _one_ English translation, I think I would pick the NKJV. My reasons are: (1) the NKJV is at the literal end of the spectrum; (2) although it's based on the TR in the New Testament and the Masoretic in the Old, it has many footnotes that describe alternative readings (Dead Sea Scrolls, LXX, modern Greek New Testaments); and (3) it retains some of the rhythm and beauty of the older translations. Now if I could have just _two_ translations -- that's an even harder question! But I might go with the KJV and the NRSV.
Mr. Jones, thanks for another great review. I'm almost ordering this edition because of the references in the center column. They are so straightforward and easy to the eye! However, I already have the Annotated NRSV and I'm not very inclined to buy yet another NRVS edition (well, maybe the HarperCollins Study Bible). For the sake of diversity, is there any other Bible version with a well done reference system like this one?
Thanks for those encouraging words! Regarding references, I've always found those in the NASB to be useful. They're based on the set prepared for the old American Standard Version. Also, the Westminster Reference Bible from the Trinitarian Bible Society has extensive references (perhaps as many as 200,000). It's a KJV.
@@RGrantJones No encouraging words would be enough, for your work is outstanding. The two bibles you recommended are great, but the Westminster Reference Bible is hard to find, specially where I live. Beside that, they don't have the Apocrypha. I think I'll use the Jerusalem Bible to systematically map the references, but they are no so easy to the eye in the editions I have. Any other suggestion? Thank you very much for your help!
@@umsol - the requirement for a broader OT canon makes it more difficult. The Cambridge Cameo has an adequate set of references. Editions of it are printed with the Apocrypha, but the reference set is far less extensive than that in the Westminster. The full RNJB Study Bible will be released here in the US on 3 December. I intend to purchase and review it. Perhaps it will be worthwhile. If I can think of another good option, I'll let you know!
@@RGrantJones Thank you, Mr. Jones! By the way, I'm noticing a great resemblance between the notes of the Oxford annotated NRSV (1989) and the notes of the Oxford annotated RSV, which I love. So I could just replace my NRSV by the Cambridge NRSV...
@@RGrantJones thanks, the complain is that no ref bible contain good referencing that includes respectable amount of apocrypha ref in the whole bible, other than the Oxford NRSV reference with apocrypha, edited by Martin Manser, out of print. Today, it seems the diadem is our best choice where one should write or add his own references in the middle margins when needed, there are no apocrypha integration in them.
How is this compared with the diadem edition, such as ESV or NRSV diadem with ref Apocrypha? This one seems to be very old edition 1997.we should find modern prriinting editions.
I have a bonded cover of that Holman NIV 1988-89 .....Yours looks awesome , it has the thinnest onion skin paper but proves paper doesn't need to weigh more to fix ghosting problems. Brother I'm concerned about the future of bible designs.... I think 2KDenmark is planning to take over the bible design world, making all these new fonts for every bible publishing company on the planet. If Scooby and the kids pull the mask off this guy I guarantee they would say " Mr. Jongbloed it was you the whole time!"....😂
The Holman NIV I showed *is* bonded leather. If I do a video on it, I'll use my wife's genuine leather copy! The paper is very thin but decently opaque. I vaguely remember some print darkness/lightness issues, but I haven't used it in many years, so I could be mistaken. I'm generally happy with most of the 2K typefaces I've seen, but I can't say they're better than the Blue Heron Bookcraft typefaces. I remember seeing negative comments about the 2K NIV font when it first came out, but nothing recently. Maybe everyone's gotten used to it. (I haven't seen it in person, since I haven't bought an NIV in about a decade.) I might change my opinion based on your observations in "The Open Bible, my thoughts after a week of study," which I'm about to watch. But it seems to me, from what I've seen so far, that 2K is more concerned about readability than saving paper -- which is a good thing.
There are so many options when buying a Bible for the New Testament. It's not as simple as the Old testament. I bought the NETS, Lexham, and the Dead Sea Scrolls basically all 3 bibles that you reviewed. I'm about to buy KJV 1611 by Hendrickson Publishers but I want another version that is similar to the other bibles that I bought that can show what manuscripts were used to translate. But there are just too many options that I am overwhelmed to choose. For now, I'm just getting the 1611 version.
I generally prefer leather; but if I intend to use a Bible primarily for reference, I'd rather it be a hardback so I can keep it upright on a shelf and access it easily.
Thank you for the very detailed and well done reviews! I have a question, What do you think about the insertion of “when” in Genesis 1:1 in this particular translation?
Ryan - I have mixed feelings about the expression, "qualified to have an opinion," but I have to say that I'm not qualified to have an opinion on this question. I defer to those who've studied Hebrew. I can say that the Greek Old Testament doesn't support that "when" construction.
I love your reviews but with due respect, you need a lavalier lapel mic or something with some gain near your mouth. A video production will only ever be as good as the sound quality. Your videos are great except for the low levels and ambient pickup. I wish I could hear you better. Otherwise, keep up the good work!!!
Thanks for the constructive feedback, Yuca Fries. When I listen to my videos, I don't hear any problems with the sound. Is there too much ambient noise?
@@RGrantJones I don't hear any problem at all. In fact, I keep watching these videos, despite the fact that I'm no longer shopping for a Bible, specifically because I love how they sound.
This Bible can be purchased here www.christianbook.com/nrsv-reference-bible-with-apocrypha-hardcover/9781108419147/pd/419147 and here www.amazon.com/NRSV-Reference-Bible-Apocrypha-NR560/dp/1108419143 . For the more expensive editions in leather, see evangelicalbible.com/product-category/nrsv/ .
I appreciate the thorough review! I'm considering getting one and this is the best review I've found concerning the actual content of this particular Bible vs. focusing on all the beautiful leather covers (which do look nice!)
I have found that a lot of Bible reviewers spend the bulk of their time ogling at the leather and paper, and not actually looking at the contents of either. This channel is the exception rather than the rule.
I just ordered this along with the Oxford annotated. I think together they’ll make a good set
I have just ordered the brown cowhide/edge-lined version of this (without apocrypha) with a 34% saving. I was influenced by this review chiefly (for the content especially). This is to make up for a very poor ESV Crossway Wide Margin purchase decision that I made recently (that’s been given away now). I might buy the NRSV apocrypha separately one day. This NRSV Reference completes my collection (NIV Clarion, TBS Westminster Reference KJV and Cambridge BCP Enlarged edition in French Moroccan.)
Thank You for another wonderful review. ☕️🙏🏼
Thanks for those kind words, usmcvet!
I was wondering, whether the Oxford NRSV with Apocrypha Edition is better or the Cambridge one? Also, Cambridge one has 800 less pages for some reason.
The Oxford is a study Bible, so there are notes on most pages. That's the reason for the difference in page count. The Oxford also has better line spacing, so I find reading it more pleasant. But it is much less portable than the Cambridge.
Out of curiosity, I compared this Cambridge NRSV to the Allan NRSV1, which has the same books as the Oxford NRSV, but no study notes. The Allan has 927 Old Testament pages, the Cambridge 868. For the Deuterocanonicals, Allan = 281, Cambridge = 263. For the New Testament, Allan = 282, Cambridge = 262. So the total is Allan = 1490, Cambridge = 1393.
Where do you get the clear plastic covers from?
Thank you.
Those are likely Brodart archival dust jacket covers. They should be available from Amazon.
@RGrantJones Thank You!
Since you mentioned that audience interest is a factor in determining whether or not you review the 1986 NIV, then I would certainly voice my interest, sir.
Out of curiosity, what is your opinion on the NIV as a translation? It seems to be one of the most loved and hated of the English Bibles simultaneously.
Thank you again for another great and detailed review, Dr. Jones.
Thanks for letting me know that old NIV is of interest.
My opinion of the NIV has changed over the years. I liked it quite a lot back in the 1980s, but over time, after hearing again and again from various speakers about untrustworthy translations of specific passages, I used it less and less. When I learned Greek, it seemed to me that the critics had a good case.
But these days, I'm warming to the NIV again. I wouldn't recommend it as a primary translation, but it does provide useful interpretations. I don't like the NIV's English style as well as that in other dynamic translations, like the New English Bible, Revised English Bible, Jerusalem Bible, or its revisions. But I think the NIV translators offer a perspective worthy of consideration as we read and interpret the text.
I don't have much experience with the 2011 NIV. I scored its "literalness" in 200 New Testament verses, but I did it using Bible Gateway online. I don't own a 2011 NIV. That said, having used the NRSV over the years, I find most of the gender inclusive language tricks don't bother me much. The experts say that "brothers and sisters" is a legitimate translation of _adelphoi._ Using the plural when the original is singular isn't as literal as it could be, but in the cases I've examined it doesn't seem to change the sense of the passage. Verses like 2 Peter 1.9 in the NRSV are troublesome, however; and I'd have to examine the 2011 NIV in depth to get a sense for the degree to which its inclusive approach has distorted the meaning. It would have been better, I think, to have retained the older gender inclusive understanding of words like "he", "him", "his", "man", and "men", rather than to redefine them as exclusively masculine and then to complain that our language excludes the feminine!
I may review an NIV in a few weeks. I've thought showing the old "Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible."
R. Grant Jones Thank you for the detailed reply and information. Your conclusions make good sense.
The “Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible” would be fascinating to see as well. All your reviews are superb, though, so the book in question is often irrelevant!
Thank you again for supplying content to bookworms and Bible enthusiasts.
Brother Grant, If you could only have one English translation which would you pick?
Thanks for that question, Pastor Brian. It's a hard one! I think I might end Part 2 of my KJV vs ESV video by saying, "If you're wondering which one I think is better -- happily, I don't have to choose between them. Each has merits, and I think I'll just keep right on using both."
But to answer your hypothetical question, if I could have only _one_ English translation, I think I would pick the NKJV. My reasons are: (1) the NKJV is at the literal end of the spectrum; (2) although it's based on the TR in the New Testament and the Masoretic in the Old, it has many footnotes that describe alternative readings (Dead Sea Scrolls, LXX, modern Greek New Testaments); and (3) it retains some of the rhythm and beauty of the older translations.
Now if I could have just _two_ translations -- that's an even harder question! But I might go with the KJV and the NRSV.
Mr. Jones, thanks for another great review. I'm almost ordering this edition because of the references in the center column. They are so straightforward and easy to the eye! However, I already have the Annotated NRSV and I'm not very inclined to buy yet another NRVS edition (well, maybe the HarperCollins Study Bible). For the sake of diversity, is there any other Bible version with a well done reference system like this one?
Thanks for those encouraging words! Regarding references, I've always found those in the NASB to be useful. They're based on the set prepared for the old American Standard Version. Also, the Westminster Reference Bible from the Trinitarian Bible Society has extensive references (perhaps as many as 200,000). It's a KJV.
@@RGrantJones No encouraging words would be enough, for your work is outstanding. The two bibles you recommended are great, but the Westminster Reference Bible is hard to find, specially where I live. Beside that, they don't have the Apocrypha. I think I'll use the Jerusalem Bible to systematically map the references, but they are no so easy to the eye in the editions I have. Any other suggestion? Thank you very much for your help!
@@umsol - the requirement for a broader OT canon makes it more difficult. The Cambridge Cameo has an adequate set of references. Editions of it are printed with the Apocrypha, but the reference set is far less extensive than that in the Westminster. The full RNJB Study Bible will be released here in the US on 3 December. I intend to purchase and review it. Perhaps it will be worthwhile. If I can think of another good option, I'll let you know!
@@RGrantJones Thank you, Mr. Jones! By the way, I'm noticing a great resemblance between the notes of the Oxford annotated NRSV (1989) and the notes of the Oxford annotated RSV, which I love. So I could just replace my NRSV by the Cambridge NRSV...
Does the diadem edition have more or less amount of references? How do you compare the references in quantity and quality?
Based on a few spot checks, the Diadem appears to have more references. I haven't examined the references carefully enough to judge their quality.
@@RGrantJones thanks, the complain is that no ref bible contain good referencing that includes respectable amount of apocrypha ref in the whole bible, other than the Oxford NRSV reference with apocrypha, edited by Martin Manser, out of print. Today, it seems the diadem is our best choice where one should write or add his own references in the middle margins when needed, there are no apocrypha integration in them.
How is this compared with the diadem edition, such as ESV or NRSV diadem with ref Apocrypha? This one seems to be very old edition 1997.we should find modern prriinting editions.
Maybe you mentioned it, but is this edition line matched? Thank you!
I just checked about 20 spots at random. As far as I can tell, it is line matched. I hope all's well with you, Fernando.
@@RGrantJones very kind of you. Yes, I am well as I continue my work as a hospital chaplain. May you have a blessed Pentecost!
I have a bonded cover of that Holman NIV 1988-89 .....Yours looks awesome , it has the thinnest onion skin paper but proves paper doesn't need to weigh more to fix ghosting problems.
Brother I'm concerned about the future of bible designs....
I think 2KDenmark is planning to take over the bible design world, making all these new fonts for every bible publishing company on the planet.
If Scooby and the kids pull the mask off this guy I guarantee they would say " Mr. Jongbloed it was you the whole time!"....😂
The Holman NIV I showed *is* bonded leather. If I do a video on it, I'll use my wife's genuine leather copy! The paper is very thin but decently opaque. I vaguely remember some print darkness/lightness issues, but I haven't used it in many years, so I could be mistaken.
I'm generally happy with most of the 2K typefaces I've seen, but I can't say they're better than the Blue Heron Bookcraft typefaces. I remember seeing negative comments about the 2K NIV font when it first came out, but nothing recently. Maybe everyone's gotten used to it. (I haven't seen it in person, since I haven't bought an NIV in about a decade.) I might change my opinion based on your observations in "The Open Bible, my thoughts after a week of study," which I'm about to watch. But it seems to me, from what I've seen so far, that 2K is more concerned about readability than saving paper -- which is a good thing.
There are so many options when buying a Bible for the New Testament. It's not as simple as the Old testament. I bought the NETS, Lexham, and the Dead Sea Scrolls basically all 3 bibles that you reviewed. I'm about to buy KJV 1611 by Hendrickson Publishers but I want another version that is similar to the other bibles that I bought that can show what manuscripts were used to translate. But there are just too many options that I am overwhelmed to choose.
For now, I'm just getting the 1611 version.
Do you prefer hardcover bibles over leather?
I generally prefer leather; but if I intend to use a Bible primarily for reference, I'd rather it be a hardback so I can keep it upright on a shelf and access it easily.
Not bad looking. Cambrige or oxford?
Thank you for the very detailed and well done reviews!
I have a question, What do you think about the insertion of “when” in Genesis 1:1 in this particular translation?
Ryan - I have mixed feelings about the expression, "qualified to have an opinion," but I have to say that I'm not qualified to have an opinion on this question. I defer to those who've studied Hebrew. I can say that the Greek Old Testament doesn't support that "when" construction.
I love your reviews but with due respect, you need a lavalier lapel mic or something with some gain near your mouth. A video production will only ever be as good as the sound quality. Your videos are great except for the low levels and ambient pickup. I wish I could hear you better. Otherwise, keep up the good work!!!
Thanks for the constructive feedback, Yuca Fries. When I listen to my videos, I don't hear any problems with the sound. Is there too much ambient noise?
@@RGrantJones I don't hear any problem at all. In fact, I keep watching these videos, despite the fact that I'm no longer shopping for a Bible, specifically because I love how they sound.
@@nickbowden5516 - thanks for letting me know, Nick!