Musing on Study Bibles
John Hobbins posted twice yesterday about Study Bibles: A Truly Ecumenical Study Bible followed closely by The Best Study Bibles on the Market Today As well as reading the posts, make a note of Iyov’s comments and emendations in particular.
Two particular omissions from John’s list are The NIV Study Bible (about which more in a minute) and (although it doesn’t identify itself as a study Bible) the standard edition of the New Jerusalem Bible.
I have to confess to a great ambivalence about study Bibles. On the one hand, they can be invaluable tools. On the other hand (and I note beginning students regularly using the NIV mentioned above like this) they can encourage a number of bad habits:
- assuming the notes are definitive
- assuming their tradition of interpretation is the only one
- giving notes, headings and study aids an aura of canonicity
Taken together, study Bibles can develop a sense of creeping infallibility for the material that surrounds the text. (Ironically, the NIV, used by students for whom, formally, a high view of the scriptures is axiomatic, seems to encourage this material canonization of the interpretative tradition more than any other.) Among other problems, this seems to me to encourage students’ laziness, and a dubious acceptance of straightforward meaning, where the text in fact needs a fuller engagement.
Secondly, and related to this, taking up what Iyov notes in his comment, there really is no such thing as a tradition neutral study Bible. The better study Bibles reflect an awareness of this, and often point to more than one understanding or tradition, so that they are in some senses at least, tradition-ecumenical. Even straightforward historical information is not strictly neutral, because an accumulation of it tends to point people away from the theological narration of history towards nice enlightenment-friendly historical facts.
None of that should take away from their usefulness as a tool for engagement with the text, but it does mean, I think, that we ought to much more vociferous about putting a health warning on them. At the very least, I would argue that should appear typographically, using one typeface for the words of scripture, and another typeface for headings, notes, essays and other reference material. Many students, study group leaders and preachers need every reminder that no-one has canonised the editors’ interpretation.
August 28th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
using one typeface for the words of scripture, and another typeface for headings, notes, essays and other reference material.
I would agree that this should be done, but surely it is? I don’t know all the Study Bibles you and John recommend, but the ones I do know all make these kinds of distinctions - including the NIV Study Bible which uses a significantly smaller print for its study notes. Anyone who takes these to be part of the inspired text is simply ignorant.
August 28th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
I used the Catholic JB in the 60s and still have it and use it. The annotations were a work of love but you are right, they represent one committee’s view at the time. Very helpful to me though and still a legitimate reference for one of many views. What then do we find and how? Going back to your earlier expressed concern re: follow me as I follow Christ, I think we must allow ourselves the luxury of this faith, however we express it. I think I have heard it expressed and seen it done without explicit reference to Christ - ubi caritas, ibi deus est.