lpetrich

I don't have much of a clue about this, but why is there is a difference between study Bibles and devotional Bibles? Approach to translation? Slanting and rewriting that the translators are willing to do?

DCHindley

Study Bibles come in two forms:

One is for the evangelical/fundamentalist, such as a Scofield Chain Reference Bible or Ryrie (sp?) Study Bible, which basically has for each verse of the KJV chain references to other passages that use the same phrase, express a vaguely similar thought, or which share a connection to a "fundamental" doctrine, generally Calvinist Protestant in orientation. These may also exist based on the New International Version or New King James Version versions. If they contain any notes at all, they are rarely about chronological or text critical issues, and if they do they are "party line" all the way. These almost never include the Apocrypha (Deuterocanonical books). The Eastern Orthodox churches may have something similar, which could include the deuterocanonical books they consider part of scripture. They used to prefer the KJV but now there are new translations which are in modern language which also include translations of the OT based on the Lxx Greek text instead of the Hebrew.

The other kind is meant for moderates or liberals (but agnostics and atheists will find them very useful), such as the New American Bible (published by the Roman Catholic Church, so it contains the Apocrypha), or the Oxford Study Bible (based on the Revised Standard Version or New Revised Std Version), which also contains the Apocrypha. At key verses both contain some references to other verses but not to the extent of the ones above. They do, however, include plenty of notes about dates of historical events, some context notes especially when critics think the text has been rearranged from chronological order or written by different authors, or there are important text variants etc. I used both of the above, because any one will not cover everything you want to know, so you have to cross check them. The New Jerusalem Bible and New Jerome Bibles have plenty of commentary but seem to be "doctrinaire."

The "re-writes" are things like the paraphrases (Living Bible) and such, which restate confusing or ambiguous passages (there are way more than most think) into forms that conform to Reformed/Calvinist doctrines.

KJV is slightly updated old English. RSV is more modern and generally sticks to the original text. NRSV is same as RSV except the language is "gender neutral" to enhance use in worship. NIV is a modern translation from a somewhat conservative ("Evangelical") Christian POV.

DCH

lpetrich

So even study Bibles also have a split, though it's not a sharp line.

DCHindley, it looks like the main difference between study Bibles is what sort of commentary rather than translation style.

I remember the New Jerusalem Bible's commentary having a strange split. The Old Testament's commentary was mainly about the history, while the New Testament's commentary was mainly theological. But it's been a long time.