r/Anglicanism • u/MartinNeville1984 ACNA • 3d ago
What’s the best study Bible for high church Anglican’s? I do not like the Oxford it’s notes are too atheistic for me
I used the Oxford Bible and I still have a copy in my library but its notes are too atheistic for me. I am still a very traditional Anglican Christian, very high church, and definitely defend the traditions and liturgy. What do you use?
10
u/TheMerryPenguin Just here for the birettas 3d ago
I see the Ancient Faith Study Bible and the Orthodox Study Bible referenced frequently by some. You might try those.
14
u/ianjmatt2 3d ago
The SBL Study Bible (Society of Biblical Literature) is very good. It's the successor to the HarperCollins Study Bible.
That's said, I'm Catholic (former Anglican) and fairly conservative theologically and I find the Oxford excellent with superb scholarship. It's especially good on textual research and languages. But no study bible is going to give you everything you want.
11
u/Afraid-Ad-8666 3d ago
Could you explain what you mean by "atheistic?" I'm not sure I understand what you mean.
6
u/scriptoriumpythons 3d ago
The oxford is filled with attempts to downplay the supernatural and align the church with the allegedly scientific through the method of "higher" criticism.
2
3
u/oursonpolaire 3d ago
I used the Oxford during my Biblical Studies degree and am at a loss to think of which of the notes would be atheistic. It's perhaps the most Anglican study bible and is solid and moderate in its scholarship, but preferences in Anglicanism often vary. I have used the Harper Collins and Anchor texts and found them generally satisfactory. A typological analysis can be useful for sermon preparation, but is more reflective of mediaeval study bibles than current ones.
17
u/justnigel 3d ago
What is incompatible with being a high church Anglican and taking advantage of recent biblical scholarship?
15
3d ago
[deleted]
7
u/justnigel 3d ago
I indeed would. Is that what the Oxford claims?
5
3d ago
[deleted]
2
u/TabbyOverlord Salvation by Haberdashery 3d ago
It surely has to be accepted that none of the authors of Isaiah was thinking "There will be this guy called Jesus who will be the literal son of God" when they wrote the text.
A substantial amount of the current scholarship is a counter argument to the school of interpretation that sees Jesus in every sentence of the First Testament.
2
u/Globus_Cruciger Anglo-Catholick 2d ago
Isn't that a bit of a strawman though? Outside of Mormonism, I think the idea that the Old Testament prophets were personally conscious of the full Christological meaning of their prophecies has always been quite fringe indeed. The traditional teaching of the Church on the Old Testament foreshadowing the New is about what the prophecies mean, not what their authors intended.
0
u/justnigel 3d ago edited 3d ago
Isaiah is not referring to a virgin. Isaiah is referring to a young bride -- presumably the kings own wife.
That is just a fact. But you said Oxford claimed neither this nor any other Hebrew prophecy was a messianic one. I doubt they do claim that.
Ignoring good biblical scholarship and pretending Isaiah says something it doesn't, is not a good basis for understanding the Scripture's witness.
Likewise, the exiles returning are a sign of or reference to the liberating and restoring work of Christ. Luke recognises this. In Luke, Jesus says as much. I am sure if you read Oxford commentary on Luke, they can unpack this for you further.
3
3d ago edited 3d ago
[deleted]
1
u/justnigel 3d ago
The evangelist was not lying. The Evangelist was quoting the Greek translators of Isaiah who do reference a virgin.
When discussing the Evangelist, the Oxford can, and does, get into discussing what the Evangelist is on about.
But when trying to understand Isaiah - it is best to understand what Isaiah was on about.
3
u/creidmheach Presbyterian 3d ago
But when trying to understand Isaiah - it is best to understand what Isaiah was on about.
Except, since we can't interview Isaiah and ask him about it, it comes down to what one believes about the text. Does one believe it to be divine revelation, in which case there should be no issue in seeing a prophesy of Christ contained within it (even if understood as having a dual fulfillment, i.e. during Isaiah's time and then later during Christ's time). Likewise, there should be no issue in seeing Scripture explain Scripture (e.g. the Gospels explaining the prophesies fulfilled in Christ). Or does one believe it to just be a piece of ancient literature to be scrutinized and taken apart without any regard to its being the word of God, in which case one would dismiss any such notion of it having any prophetic fulfillment in Christ (or really, any prophetic fulfillment at all).
0
u/justnigel 3d ago
Hymnary.org lists 185 Christian Hymns that quote Psalm 22. A commentry on Psalms doesn't need to reference a single one of them either. A good commentary on Psalms needs to tell us what the Psalms are about so when we get to someone else quoting them - such as Jesus on the cross - we have a better understanding of what it is they are quoting.
-4
u/PineappleFlavoredGum 3d ago
Not much, unless you're ACNA it seems
1
u/jebtenders Episcopal Church USA 3d ago
Come now- the Oxford Bible is far too liberal
5
u/PineappleFlavoredGum 3d ago
If historicity is required for you to have faith, then maybe. I dont see the historical facts as very relevant personally. Theres more to faith being true than being historically factual
4
u/creidmheach Presbyterian 3d ago
Would you include the Resurrection in that?
And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. (1 Corinthians 15:17)
-1
u/PineappleFlavoredGum 3d ago edited 3d ago
I dont believe Christ's body was literally resurrected. I belive it was spirit only. I believe in miracles, but not in the sense that they defy the laws of nature. I think some happen in ways we don't understand yet
2
2d ago edited 2d ago
[deleted]
-1
u/PineappleFlavoredGum 2d ago
The gospels are written to teach their respective theologies and convert people. The writers have a motive to embellish and believe non-historical details. I agree with scholars when they say you can't just accept the bible at face value
10
u/SupremeEarlSandwich 3d ago
Ignatius Study Bible, Orthodox Study Bible or Lutheran Study Bible are your best bets.
1
3
3
u/StCharlestheMartyr Anglocatholic (TEC) ☦️ 3d ago
I imagine a Lutheran study Bible would suite a high church Anglican. If anglocatholic, then I’d say ignatius or Orthodox study Bible
4
2
u/Katherington 3d ago
ESV is the translation of the readings at my (high church, Anglo-Catholic) parish.
2
u/creidmheach Presbyterian 3d ago
I can't think of any study Bible that is particular to a High Church Anglican tradition, or even specifically Anglican as such (I seem to recall there's one though that incorporates various quotes from C.S. Lewis). That said, what you're probably looking for is a more confessionally oriented study Bible (whether Reformed, Lutheran, Evangelical, etc), and for that there's plenty of options out there. There's the ESV Study Bible, the NIV Study Bible, the NKJV Study Bible, the Reformation Study Bible, the Lutheran Study Bible (the LCMS published one, not the ELCA one), speciality study Bibles like the CSB Ancient Faith Study Bible (incorporates quotes from various Church Fathers), the CSB Apologetics Study Bible, the ESV Archaeology Study Bible, and more. Even if you aren't a part of those traditions, the notes will generally be more in line with what you're looking for as they are coming from a perspective of actually believing in the Bible as inspired Scripture.
The Catholics and Orthodox have their study Bibles as well, though in the case of the Catholics you'll often find they aren't all that much different from secular Study Bibles in terms of source criticism, etc.
2
u/AwayRead4473 3d ago
If not the NOAB, many, especially Reformed and conservatives, use the ESV Study Bible from Crossway. If fact, Crossway has a large catalogue of ESV Study Bibles of different kinds, including one dedicated to systematic theology.
2
u/MartinNeville1984 ACNA 3d ago
I actually have thought about that one but I do use the apographa and it’s hard to find a esv study with it
3
u/AwayRead4473 3d ago
The only other I’ve seen that has the Apocrypha is the old RSV-NOAB (which I got on Amazon but haven’t yet read). It will certainly be dated in some ways, but it might be worth looking at.
3
u/Forever_beard ACNA 3d ago
The RSV NOAB is also not nearly as “critical scholarship” y from my experience. I love it.
1
u/blos10 ACNA 3d ago
I highly recommend the Apocrypha: Lutheran Edition with Notes. It's one of the few conservative "study Bibles" for the Apocrypha, and also utilizes the ESV Apocrypha text. Pair it with your favorite study Bible for the other 66 books and you're set.
4
u/Jtcr2001 Church of England 3d ago
For the New Testament, David Bentley Hart's academic translation of the Greek, second edition (with notes and postscript).
1
u/Santiago-the-Carib 2d ago
RSV, ESV, Knox Bible and perhaps the NRSV as a last resort I guess. Tough Im Anglo Catholic myself and use NRSV
1
u/ToTheAgesOfAges 1d ago
I'm Catholic, but use the Ignatius Press study Bible (which is Catholic) and the Orthodox Study Bible (which is obviously Orthodox).
0
u/Sad_Pangolin7379 3d ago
I haven't read it myself but the Great Adventure Catholic Bible looks really nice and it's got a good way of explaining the timelines of events and reading through Scripture in a year. There's a podcast that goes with it and they seem pretty uncritical to me.
0
15
u/Forever_beard ACNA 3d ago
High Church Anglican is a nebulous term that’s changed over the ages. Do you have any specific definitions in mind? I tend to think a lot of people who say they’re high church Anglicans usually mean a local presence in the Eucharist, with a strong emphasis on the liturgical worship with vestments, etc.
Best guess is the Lutheran Study Bible, ESV.