# New Interpreter's Study Bible



## RamistThomist (Feb 9, 2018)

This is the Study Bible for the "strong-independent-woman-who-don't-need-no-man."

Back in the day the reigning paradigm of unbelief was German higher-criticism reflected in American universities. They reasoned that the supernatural of the Bible was obviously false because 19th century Protestant scholarship had clearly shown it to be so (note the Hegelian presupposition here: we in our moment of history have reached the apex of intellectual history and [only] we get to be the arbiter of what is true or false). Thus, if you looked at the study notes of any particular passage, you would see some learned professor explaining it away on naturalistic grounds. The study bible soon became boring. One could almost anticipate the next note of unbelief. 

Liberalism, though, soon underwent a strange mutation at Yale University. Some liberals suddenly realized that they were as myopic as the fundamentalists they had attacked. The fundamentalist was perceived to have a blind faith in the truth of the text. Oddly enough, the liberal realized that he had a blind faith in the falsity of the text. Other liberals realized that both fundamentalists and liberals approached the text in the same way—it was simply a document to be analyzed and whose meaning was ALWAYS determined outside the liturgical life of the Church. What was to be done?

Liberals soon proclaimed themselves “post-liberals.” They realized (quite correctly) that narrative was a fundamental component of Scripture. Emphasis soon went to the narrative of Scripture in its received canonical form, and not to the various (and often admittedly unknowable) strata of oral Hebrew traditions. And with the use of narrative as a philosophical tool, post-liberals (who still remained leftist and “progressive” in their social morality ) realized a fatal weakness in their forebears: if Scripture is really fake after all, and the supernatural doesn’t happen, how can we call upon a God to take away the wealth of social structures of the middle class conservative American voter? Only a God who really acted in history could confiscate and redistribtute wealth!

Okay, on to the actual contents of this study bible itself. Like any study bible, the notes are often “hit or miss,” and this isn’t a fault of the editors themselves. There are different writers for each book who have various levels of intelligence and competency (usually quite low). Therefore, it is hard to make generalizations about the study bible. On the other hand, with a few exceptions, a number of observations are possible:

• The authors of this study bible are committed to the thesis that the NT Jew can never do wrong. Anytime there is a reference in the New Testament to the sins of the Jewish people (e.g., Christ calls them children of the devil; St Paul says wrath will come on them to the uttermost, etc), the editors explain it away with the line that anti-semitism must be condemned at all costs (except when perpetrated against Arab Christians). 

Further, when speaking of the glorious prophecies for the Christian church the author is quick (see notes on Jeremiah 33ff) to point out this doesn’t apply to Christians but to Jews today. This is an example of letting post-Holocaust guilt determine exegesis. 

• The authors generally have a negative image of “the male.” Like all feminists they see in every passage an example of masculine social structures being destroyed. While it is true many passages do reverse the social orders, not every passage does and to keep maintaining it is reading conclusions into the text. 

It gets worse, though. The authors of both Luke and Acts see (correctly) that the Christian image of the Trinity is masculine (later thinkers were to draw the conclusion that the monarchia of the Father assumes a political monarchy as the ideal on earth). This is an example where post-liberals are far more honest readers of Scripture than American evangelicals. The liberal realizes the monarchical (i.e., in the Cappadocian and not Sabellian sense) see Basil the Great and Gregory of Nazianzus) implications of the ancient doctrine of the Trinity, and thus rejects it. She doesn’t reject the Trinity, per se, but reworks it around postmodern and feminist categories. She will answer to God for that, but at least she perceives the implications of the text far more clearly than evangelicals.

Conclusion

There are a few let downs with this bible (aside from the unbelieving problems listed above). The first is the joke of a translation that is the New Revised Standard. While it captures English grammatical mores nicely, even the most jaded feminist (forgive the redundancy) has to admit that the text reads in a wooden and blocky fashion. The King James Version created the modern English language, of that there is no argument. Even later revisions to the King James implicitly kept much of the syntax and wording of familiar and beloved passages. The NRSV utterly destroys this. 

I didn’t expect all the notes to be equally good, and I don’t begrudge the editors that decision. In many ways, though, the thought and format of this study bible is far inferior to the bibles that had Bruce Metzger as the editor. Metzger always had interesting (if wrong) articles on the nature of Biblical scholarship, the canon, and the formation of the Biblical text. This study bible has no articles on the canon (which remains a gaping hole), but it does have a decent article on the formation of the text. Of course, there is the mandatory article on the superiority of feminist criticism. (What the feminist doesn’t realize is that given her emphasis on “suspicion” and “critique,” I, too, can employ the same suspicion and critique on her article and on that basis render it false. Deconstructionism devours itself).

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 2 | Edifying 1


----------



## Dachaser (Feb 9, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> This is the Study Bible for the "strong-independent-woman-who-don't-need-no-man."
> 
> Back in the day the reigning paradigm of unbelief was German higher-criticism reflected in American universities. They reasoned that the supernatural of the Bible was obviously false because 19th century Protestant scholarship had clearly shown it to be so (note the Hegelian presupposition here: we in our moment of history have reached the apex of intellectual history and [only] we get to be the arbiter of what is true or false). Thus, if you looked at the study notes of any particular passage, you would see some learned professor explaining it away on naturalistic grounds. The study bible soon became boring. One could almost anticipate the next note of unbelief.
> 
> ...


This so called Study Bible highlights just how really wrong liberal schaolarship concerning the scriptures is, as the various authors presuppose a definite anti supernatural and low view on inspiration and historical factual truths in the bible.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 9, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> This so called Study Bible highlights just how really wrong liberal schaolarship concerning the scriptures is, as the various authors presuppose a definite anti supernatural and low view on inspiration and historical factual truths in the bible.



Old School liberalism, ultimately embodied in the Rockefeller-CIA establishment, while hating Jesus, they still wanted a civilized moral order. Modern liberalism, while hating Jesus, wants to wallow (literally, given what comes out of the National Endowment for the Arts) in low-brow culture.

I don't think they are pure naturalists, though. They realize that a God who can't act in history can't confiscate CIS-male tax dollars.


----------



## Pilgrim (Feb 9, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> And with the use of narrative as a philosophical tool, post-liberals (who still remained leftist and “progressive” in their social morality ) realized a fatal weakness in their forebears: if Scripture is really fake after all, and the supernatural doesn’t happen, how can we call upon a God to take away the wealth of social structures of the middle class conservative American voter? Only a God who really acted in history could confiscate and redistribtute wealth!



Well, because the average middle class American voter still sees the Bible and Jesus as having some authority (even if they are only Christmas and Easter church attenders themselves) the progressives find it useful to quote Matt 5, Matt 25, etc. in an attempt to shame these benighted money loving simpletons into doing right. OTOH, "doing right" with one's sexual organs is a foreign concept, as is the idea that worshipping Jesus isn't the same as worshipping Shiva. The more honest of them will admit this, and they don't really care what god you serve as long as you continue writing checks. Some will outright admit they don't believe a word of the Apostle's Creed but are only a pastrix in the UMC or wherever because they are there to fight the power and break down the strongholds of patriarchy, homophobia, and so on. 

(If you can find patriarchy in the mainline, I'd like to know where it is. Even the "big steeple" big $$ church of my childhood now has no male on staff. The idea has been that in big steeple churches people who were otherwise liberal were less likely to accept a female Sr. pastor.)

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 9, 2018)

Always ticks me off when I see, "Jesus was a ________ (Socialist/Republican/Democrat)" when I am like, "Jesus is an autocratic monarchist."


----------

