What do you think?
Rate this book
The New Oxford Annotated Apocrypha: New Revised Standard Version
For decades students, professors, clergy, and general readers have relied on The New Oxford Annotated Apocrypha as an unparalleled authority on the Apocrypha. This fifth edition remains the best way to study and understand the material at home or in the classroom. This thoroughly revised and substantially updated edition contains the best scholarship informed by recent discoveries and anchored in the solid Study Bible tradition.· Introductions and extensive annotations for each book by acknowledged experts in the field provide context and guidance.· Introductory essay on the Apocrypha gives readers an overview that guides more intensive study.· Maps and diagrams within the text contextualize where events took place and how to understand them.· A timeline, calendar, and essay on the Persian and Hellenistic Periods help to contextualize the books.A volume that users will want to keep for continued reference, The New Oxford Annotated Apocrypha continues the Oxford University Press tradition of providing excellence in scholarship for the general reader. Generations of users attest to its status as the best one-volume Bible reference tool for any home, library, or classroom.
424 pages, Kindle Edition
Published March 1, 2018
About the author
Marc Brettler
9 books1 followerMarc Brettler is an American biblical scholar, and the Bernice and Morton Lerner Professor in Judaic Studies at Duke University. He earned his B.A., M.A., and PhD from Brandeis University, where he previously served as Dora Golding Professor of Biblical Studies.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
February 11, 2026
I’m Christian now!
August 27, 2024
This is by far the best critical edition of the Christian Bible in English yet (though, by the looks of it, the newly released NRSVue will surpass it once Oxford puts out a new annotated edition which includes that work’s fascinating translation and manuscript updates). I own both the hardback and leather-bound versions of this Oxford Bible, and while the latter is certainly nicer to look at, the sturdiness (and, if I do say so, plainness of design) of the former makes it much more suited to marking up and carrying around for study.
Given that this includes the deuterocanonical/apocryphal books once used by most Protestants and still retained today by all Catholics and Orthodox, this truly is an ecumenical resource, though the recent NRSVue makes some smart improvements to this section by ordering and numbering the deuterocanonical works more in line with Orthodox and Catholic traditions (which is only right, given the greater importance accorded to these books by these Churches), as well as by relying on longer Greek manuscripts for Tobit and Judith. The only thing that might improve on that improvement is one day including the Ethiopian canon as well, which so far no major English translation has.
As far as the Hebrew Bible is concerned, Robert Alter’s translation is almost certainly superior in its attentiveness to the poetry of the original language(s), and David Bentley Hart’s New Testament is strange, refreshing, and also quite attuned to the original language (including bad grammar). But, overall, in terms of translation accuracy, historical-critical commentary, and sheer breadth of canons included, NOAB (NRSV) remains the gold standard and likely will continue to be until the Sixth Edition is completed. (For anyone interested in that update, I highly recommend Zondervan’s premier collection NRSVue with the Apocrypha, which is by far the most beautiful, durable, and readable Bible I’ve ever owned; if you prefer to separate reading from study, it’s certainly worth the price).
If, however, you’re not a Christian, or someone who is simply looking for more historical information and context regardless of faith, this is undoubtedly the best, most unbiased resource for understanding and navigating the Christian scriptures on the market.
Given that this includes the deuterocanonical/apocryphal books once used by most Protestants and still retained today by all Catholics and Orthodox, this truly is an ecumenical resource, though the recent NRSVue makes some smart improvements to this section by ordering and numbering the deuterocanonical works more in line with Orthodox and Catholic traditions (which is only right, given the greater importance accorded to these books by these Churches), as well as by relying on longer Greek manuscripts for Tobit and Judith. The only thing that might improve on that improvement is one day including the Ethiopian canon as well, which so far no major English translation has.
As far as the Hebrew Bible is concerned, Robert Alter’s translation is almost certainly superior in its attentiveness to the poetry of the original language(s), and David Bentley Hart’s New Testament is strange, refreshing, and also quite attuned to the original language (including bad grammar). But, overall, in terms of translation accuracy, historical-critical commentary, and sheer breadth of canons included, NOAB (NRSV) remains the gold standard and likely will continue to be until the Sixth Edition is completed. (For anyone interested in that update, I highly recommend Zondervan’s premier collection NRSVue with the Apocrypha, which is by far the most beautiful, durable, and readable Bible I’ve ever owned; if you prefer to separate reading from study, it’s certainly worth the price).
If, however, you’re not a Christian, or someone who is simply looking for more historical information and context regardless of faith, this is undoubtedly the best, most unbiased resource for understanding and navigating the Christian scriptures on the market.
Currently Reading
April 9, 2026Genesis:
The story of Joseph is, in my kindest words, interesting. It shows how Joseph can give a dream interpretation to a pharaoh so baby-brained that he will not even wait for any "proof" of said dream interpretation before handing over nearly full control of Egypt to Joseph. Guess the guy really didn't enjoy the job. Less sarcastically, I assume that this story was written to be applied retroactively to legitimise a regime or a family/tribe by explaining how the power was handed to them legitimately. Probably used by a claimed descendant of Joseph to some sort of rule over a small historically Egyptian area? Feel free to enlighten me if anyone knows the historical context.
---------------------------------------
Exodus:
The description of the horned altars covered in blood is definitely some kind of description of a ritual that you do to summon demons (29:10-12).
Also, Moses is able to change God's mind, allegedly, and this gives insight to a question about God possibly being able to regret flooding the earth, hence his claim that he would never do it again--this presupposing that his mind can change (32:11-14).
Uh... Moses is like, how dare you worship the Lord through a golden calf, and says for them to each of them to kill "your brother, your friend, and your neighbor" (32:19-29)?????
---------------------------------------
Leviticus:
While my enthusiasm has greatly diminished due to the repetitious and numerous descriptions of animal sacrifices and building instructions, the public health rituals found mainly in Leviticus 13, 14 and 15 are quite intriguing. They are quarantining those with "surface diseases" (infections, skin conditions, etc.) but remain quite practical at times.
Leviticus really popped off for me in Leviticus 26. The final sets of punishment that God threatens for the Israelites for disobedience mirrors the stereotypical descriptions of Jewish people in European anti-semitism. "And you I will scatter among the nations, and I will unsheathe the sword against you [...]" (26:33). I can see a Christian linking the stereotypes of "rootless" people who do not assimilate with the verse, "you shall perish among the nations, and the land of your enemies shall devour you" (26:38-39). Further, that any violence that comes their way will be justified through the application of their very own text of faith, that they would share with the Christians. Whether Christians blame Jews for "killing Jesus" or whatnot, a Biblical and divine punishment-based God always makes it easier for followers to revel or at least condone the brutal pogroms, and eventually the Holocaust. And to think this shitty argument, and any of its consequences, likely all came from some conservative Jewish faith leader who tried to say Jewish debauchery led to the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem.
---------------------------------------
Numbers:
The Levites, tribe containing Moses and Aaron, are enumerated here alongside the other tribes of Israel. The other tribes each have over 20,000 males over 20 years old, whereas the Levites count from one (1) month old and upwards and have only 22,000 (or 22,300) males. This difference in number means, it seems, that the Levites are a smaller tribe than the rest, but they also maintain a more important position in the caste hierarchy and do not have to become soldiers. It just so happens that this hierarchical caste system created by God mirrors essentially every other minoritarian caste system in history!
In Numbers 3:44-49, to "redeem" the firstborns of the Israelites that number greater than the number of Levites, they must pay a certain sum called a redemption price for each one (273 firstborns worth). This is clearly just a silly little tax, no? It is so random and is equivalent to redeeming those with beards under a certain length with a tax--just a silly excuse to collect a little more wealth from the populace. I guess I should be thankful that the rule was not to just put the extra 273 Israelite firstborns to death at this point.
In Numbers 14:1-11, the Israelites receive bad intel from the scouts about the Promised Land, and they all cry out about the perceived strength of the indigenous population. "And the Lord said to Moses, 'How long will this people despise me? And how long will they refuse to believe in me, in spite of all the signs that I have done among them?'" Moses also may be doubting the Promised Land as he sent scouts in the first place to determine the richness/poorness (and good/bad) of the land. It does not matter if the land appears good or bad, the Lord still commanded Moses to go there--after all, he will provide. Also why is God asking these questions of Moses if he is all-knowing? If they are rhetorical questions, God should not be surprised that the people he made in his image whine as much as he does.
Numbers 15:32-36: "When the Israelites were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the sabbath day. Those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses, Aaron, and to the whole congregation. They put him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. Then the LORD said to Moses, "The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him outside the camp." The whole congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death, just as the LORD had commanded Moses." These verses speak for themselves.
In Numbers 21:1-3, they made an oath to God to... destroy a town and its people..? Like was the covenant with Israel not the other way around, where God promises to destroy their enemies? This follows the same logic as my critique of the Israelite offerings to the priests being the priests' boon rather than God's (Num. 18:11-14) and not framed as it was in, I believe, Leviticus as the necessity of purification so the priests can maintain contact with the Lord. The writers in Numbers, who are clearly much worse writers, or at least lazier, than those in Leviticus, have dropped any pretense of this being about God.
Pouring one out for all the people genocided in Numbers 21 (and beyond).
Poor Balaam (and more importantly his donkey!!!) (Num. 22:20-35). Balaam speaks the words of the Lord to Balak, and says "[...] God is not a human being, that he should lie, or a mortal, that he should change his mind." (Numbers 23:19) This is all well and good, but it says in Exodus, "And the Lord changed his mind about the disaster that he planned to bring on his people" (Exodus 32:14). Is God mistaken about his own powers, or is the account in Exodus mistaken?
In Numbers 23:24, the words oracled are, "Look, a people rising up like a lioness, and rousing itself like a lion! It does not lie down until it has eaten the prey and drunk the blood of the slain." This is notable for its metaphor of drinking blood as the notion was, in theory, forbidden in Leviticus 17:10-11 for its idea that the blood is life itself. I can hear it now, "this is a metaphor!" or "it said drunk in the metaphor not eat" or whatever, but it is still fun to mention.
Numbers 25:6-9: They start impaling people for interracial (international?) marriage--totally normal behaviour for a priest of God. The footnote for these verses states, "Marriage between an Israelite man and a Midianite woman here condemned [that's one way of putting it], but Moses's wife Zipporah was a Midianite (Ex 2.15-22)." The Lord is then like: the priest who impales people "has turned back my wrath from the Israelites by manifesting such zeal among them on my behalf that in my jealousy I did not consume the Israelites (Num. 25:11)." Uh... great.
---------------------------------------
Deuteronomy:
It has finally clicked. This whole story is a journey about the formation of an ethno-religious state, ordained by God, and an attempt to tell the mythological history of the conquest of the Israelites while simultaneously attempting to justify why the priest caste rules said state. Embedded within its historical context, it hardly meaningfully stands out from its contemporaries, but after all, very few modern readers attempt to let it tell that story or allow for it to suffer such a fate.
Deuteronomy 2:30-34: This is the third official genocide by my count (prev. Num. 21:33-35; Num. 31). Notably, similar to the pharaoh of Egypt, King Sihon of Heshbon had his spirit hardened and his heart made defiant by the Lord. Sihon's people take up arms against the Israelites because of this, and they are slaughtered. "[...] we struck him down, along with his offspring and all his people. At that time we captured all his towns, and in each town we utterly destroyed men, women and children. We left not a single survivor." This is notable because in the previous chapter (1:39), Moses is talking about Israelite children who do not yet "know right from wrong," hinting at a metaphysics (or is it ontology? lol) of human development. With this in mind, it seems that the children of the people of Heshbon are punished without their knowing why, and that fact does not seem to matter. This is likely just a continuation of the theme of God imposing punishment on future generations for the sin of the ancestor.
Deuteronomy 4:6-8: "You must observe them diligently, for this will show your wisdom and discernment to the peoples, who, when they hear all these statutes, will say, 'Surely this great nation is a wise and discerning people!' For what other great nation has a god so near to it as the Lord our God is whenever we call to him? And what other great nation has statutes and ordinances as just as this entire law that I am setting before you today?"
This verse totally breaks open the 4th wall! This awareness about how the "great nation" appears to other people is the first (and maybe last) claim in this chapter about why one would want to follow the statutes--not a concern for the 'feelings' or whatnot of God! Also notable the use of the word wise and its mixture with the concept of "just" law makes this verse very clearly embedded in a particular world and historical context.
Deuteronomy 9:28: Moses reiterates how he asked God to forgive the people for their wickedness, "otherwise the land from which you have brought us might say, 'Because the Lord was not able to bring them into the land that he promised them, and because he hated them, he has brought them out to let them die in the wilderness'" (also in Num. 14:16; Deut. 32:27).
"Please, God, think of the optics! What if people doubt you?" works only on a god made with human hands.
In Deuteronomy 29:24-28, it brings to mind my critique from Lev. 26, and how the "uprooted" people are now found in another land due to abandoning God's covenant and thus are vomited from the land.
Deuteronomy 30:11-14: It talks about how the commandment (word of God?) is not far away in heaven nor across the sea but that, "the word is very near to you; it is in your mouth and in your heart for you to observe." This might be the first time that the implicit love of God is explicit.
---------------------------------------
Joshua:
In Joshua 5, the Israelites with Joshua cross the Jordan River in a similar way as they previously crossed the Red Sea. Afterwards they make a memorial out of 12 stones, as a reference to the 12 tribes of Israel, and this is where (I assume) the Christian rock (hehe) band "12 Stones" get their name.
Joshua chapters 10-12 discuss the many conquests and genocides, and so many so that I struggled to count them all. It tops off the horror with Joshua 11:19-20 saying, "There was not a town that made peace with the Israelites except the Hivites, the inhabitants of Gibeon; all were taken in battle. For it was the Lord’s doing to harden their hearts so that they would come against Israel in battle, in order that they might be utterly destroyed and might receive no mercy but be exterminated, just as the Lord had commanded Moses."
So, good news if you thought these people had free will, and thus didn't deserve mercy--it is actually opposite. They lose their free will and don't deserve mercy! I don't want to keep side-eyeing Biblical morality, but I can't help but go 'hmm.'
Joshua chapters 13-19 might be the biggest struggle so far. It is mostly boundary drawing allotments for the 12(ish) tribes of Israel, and it is painful. Only notable exception is the interesting framing of Joshua 19:9.
For as many times as it reminds you that Levites get no land inheritance, it sure does take a lot of time to describe their land inheritance (cities and pastures) in chapter 21!!! I'm not just being petty and pedantic, it is actually frustrating knowing that city-states were one of the most powerful power centralisations of the time.
---------------------------------------
Judges:
Judges 1:19 says, "The Lord was with Judah, and he took possession of the hill country, but could not drive out the inhabitants of the plain, because they had chariots of iron."
If they feel the need to include that God was with Judah, why does he not win? They say, "because they had chariots of iron" rather than "because God didn't want them to win." Almost as if they want to blame God for their loss against superior technology.
---------------------------------------
Ruth:
Ruth 2:10-12: "Then she fell prostrate, with her face to the ground, and said to him, “Why have I found favor in your sight, that you should take notice of me, when I am a foreigner?” But Boaz answered her, “All that you have done for your mother-in-law since the death of your husband has been fully told me, how you left your father and mother and your native land and came to a people that you did not know before. May the Lord reward you for your deeds, and may you have a full reward from the Lord, the God of Israel, under whose wings you have come for refuge!”
Without a doubt one of the sweetest things in the Bible so far.
Ruth 4:15 is also one of the sweetest things, "He shall be to you a restorer of life and a nourisher of your old age, for your daughter-in-law who loves you, who is more to you than seven sons, has borne him.”
This statement is way bigger than it seems on first glance, at least to me. Ruth, to Naomi, is MORE than seven sons (seven here meaning the "full" amount of blessings that offspring can offer). So not only is Ruth more than seven sons, but she is that while being a foreign born woman AND a daughter-in-law--not even blood.
---------------------------------------
1 Samuel:
Hannah's prayer in 1 Samuel 2 is ironically plagued with arrogance and circular logic.
1 Samuel 8:4-8 makes me wonder, if God sends prophets/judges that can tell Israelites what God "really" wants, how would they recognise these prophets. It says earlier that the prophets would be known as prophets for professing the word of God, but in this case the heredity priestship that exists is being uprooted by God and only Samuel knows. From the normal Israelite perspective, there is potentially a power vacuum, but there is no reason to believe that it is God's will that Samuel fills this role and upends the previously established (in Deut. law) heredity priest caste. So as a believer I am (or would be) asking: how am I supposed to take the word of Samuel at this point? Is he like the prophets predicted by God, ones who speak the words of God while also spreading falsehoods about his law for their own gain? I have many, many answers to these questions, but none of them satisfy the problem, they are simply plausible responses.
1 Samuel 13: Saul waits for Samuel for the proper amount of time but Samuel did not show up, so Saul does a sacrifice of well-being. When Samuel returns he is mad at Saul for not following God's commandment. The footnotes go on to say, "The nature of Saul's sin is not clear, since he did wait for Samiel the prescribed time; perhaps he tried to usurp Samuel's role of religious leadership."
From my perspective, perhaps two separate things happen here. Saul loses faith in Samuel, and thus God, for Samuel's tardiness AND Saul usurps Samuel's authority as priest-judge hybrid by doing the sacrifice by himself. This is ironic but also makes sense if Samuel is self-conscious and insecure about his power because he himself usurped the priestship from Eli alongside the fact that Saul was appointed by God because the Israelites did not appreciate Samuel's leadership.
1 Samuel 25 is essentially the story of how a rich guy didn't give David and his men some food, so David decided to strap on his swords for war. The wife brings food down the street as he is leaving and David says,
"Blessed be the Lord, the God of Israel, who sent you to meet me today! Blessed be your good sense, and blessed be you, who kept me today from bloodguilt and from avenging myself by my own hand! For as surely as the Lord the God of Israel lives, who has restrained me from hurting you, unless you had hurried and come to meet me, truly by morning there would not have been left to Nabal so much as one male.” Then David received from her hand what she had brought him; he said to her, “Go up to your house in peace; see, I have heeded your voice, and I have granted your petition.” Then David marries the rich guy's wife when he dies.
David essentially rules like the literal mafia.
In Samuel 29, David is clearly setting up to betray King Achish, the king of the Philistines, and the king is seen as gullible for believing the hero of the Lord would betray God's people, the Israelites.
Once again, David is seen as deceitful, or alternatively cunning if you want to put a positive spin on it, and this reminds me of my previous commentary on European anti-semitism. David is seen as one of the most holy men of God in the Bible, a man who uses deceit and eventually has, at best, coerced sex with Bathsheba. There is an old stereotype, used frequently in Nazi Germany, that Jews are "defilers of your women" and "deceitful, not to be trusted," and I wonder how much the story of David was used for this very purpose.
---------------------------------------
2 Samuel:
First, I am confused at why David would accept his anointment as King of Judah without first consulting God. God, through the short answers, just told him to go to Hebron; you'd think he'd ask if this was what the Lord meant. Second, in 2 Samuel 3:11-12, why would David, who respects and loves Saul and his family, make a covenant with the head of the military to usurp the rightful power of Saul's son? Would David not have any reservations about this deal? Would he not seek God's insight for such a large event?
In 2 Samuel 4, continuing the question of the last paragraph, why does David care now about the Benjaminites (ofc the writers made Benjaminites do it) killing Ishbaal, Saul's son?
----------------
No more characters--fin
The story of Joseph is, in my kindest words, interesting. It shows how Joseph can give a dream interpretation to a pharaoh so baby-brained that he will not even wait for any "proof" of said dream interpretation before handing over nearly full control of Egypt to Joseph. Guess the guy really didn't enjoy the job. Less sarcastically, I assume that this story was written to be applied retroactively to legitimise a regime or a family/tribe by explaining how the power was handed to them legitimately. Probably used by a claimed descendant of Joseph to some sort of rule over a small historically Egyptian area? Feel free to enlighten me if anyone knows the historical context.
---------------------------------------
Exodus:
The description of the horned altars covered in blood is definitely some kind of description of a ritual that you do to summon demons (29:10-12).
Also, Moses is able to change God's mind, allegedly, and this gives insight to a question about God possibly being able to regret flooding the earth, hence his claim that he would never do it again--this presupposing that his mind can change (32:11-14).
Uh... Moses is like, how dare you worship the Lord through a golden calf, and says for them to each of them to kill "your brother, your friend, and your neighbor" (32:19-29)?????
---------------------------------------
Leviticus:
While my enthusiasm has greatly diminished due to the repetitious and numerous descriptions of animal sacrifices and building instructions, the public health rituals found mainly in Leviticus 13, 14 and 15 are quite intriguing. They are quarantining those with "surface diseases" (infections, skin conditions, etc.) but remain quite practical at times.
Leviticus really popped off for me in Leviticus 26. The final sets of punishment that God threatens for the Israelites for disobedience mirrors the stereotypical descriptions of Jewish people in European anti-semitism. "And you I will scatter among the nations, and I will unsheathe the sword against you [...]" (26:33). I can see a Christian linking the stereotypes of "rootless" people who do not assimilate with the verse, "you shall perish among the nations, and the land of your enemies shall devour you" (26:38-39). Further, that any violence that comes their way will be justified through the application of their very own text of faith, that they would share with the Christians. Whether Christians blame Jews for "killing Jesus" or whatnot, a Biblical and divine punishment-based God always makes it easier for followers to revel or at least condone the brutal pogroms, and eventually the Holocaust. And to think this shitty argument, and any of its consequences, likely all came from some conservative Jewish faith leader who tried to say Jewish debauchery led to the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem.
---------------------------------------
Numbers:
The Levites, tribe containing Moses and Aaron, are enumerated here alongside the other tribes of Israel. The other tribes each have over 20,000 males over 20 years old, whereas the Levites count from one (1) month old and upwards and have only 22,000 (or 22,300) males. This difference in number means, it seems, that the Levites are a smaller tribe than the rest, but they also maintain a more important position in the caste hierarchy and do not have to become soldiers. It just so happens that this hierarchical caste system created by God mirrors essentially every other minoritarian caste system in history!
In Numbers 3:44-49, to "redeem" the firstborns of the Israelites that number greater than the number of Levites, they must pay a certain sum called a redemption price for each one (273 firstborns worth). This is clearly just a silly little tax, no? It is so random and is equivalent to redeeming those with beards under a certain length with a tax--just a silly excuse to collect a little more wealth from the populace. I guess I should be thankful that the rule was not to just put the extra 273 Israelite firstborns to death at this point.
In Numbers 14:1-11, the Israelites receive bad intel from the scouts about the Promised Land, and they all cry out about the perceived strength of the indigenous population. "And the Lord said to Moses, 'How long will this people despise me? And how long will they refuse to believe in me, in spite of all the signs that I have done among them?'" Moses also may be doubting the Promised Land as he sent scouts in the first place to determine the richness/poorness (and good/bad) of the land. It does not matter if the land appears good or bad, the Lord still commanded Moses to go there--after all, he will provide. Also why is God asking these questions of Moses if he is all-knowing? If they are rhetorical questions, God should not be surprised that the people he made in his image whine as much as he does.
Numbers 15:32-36: "When the Israelites were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the sabbath day. Those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses, Aaron, and to the whole congregation. They put him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. Then the LORD said to Moses, "The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him outside the camp." The whole congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death, just as the LORD had commanded Moses." These verses speak for themselves.
In Numbers 21:1-3, they made an oath to God to... destroy a town and its people..? Like was the covenant with Israel not the other way around, where God promises to destroy their enemies? This follows the same logic as my critique of the Israelite offerings to the priests being the priests' boon rather than God's (Num. 18:11-14) and not framed as it was in, I believe, Leviticus as the necessity of purification so the priests can maintain contact with the Lord. The writers in Numbers, who are clearly much worse writers, or at least lazier, than those in Leviticus, have dropped any pretense of this being about God.
Pouring one out for all the people genocided in Numbers 21 (and beyond).
Poor Balaam (and more importantly his donkey!!!) (Num. 22:20-35). Balaam speaks the words of the Lord to Balak, and says "[...] God is not a human being, that he should lie, or a mortal, that he should change his mind." (Numbers 23:19) This is all well and good, but it says in Exodus, "And the Lord changed his mind about the disaster that he planned to bring on his people" (Exodus 32:14). Is God mistaken about his own powers, or is the account in Exodus mistaken?
In Numbers 23:24, the words oracled are, "Look, a people rising up like a lioness, and rousing itself like a lion! It does not lie down until it has eaten the prey and drunk the blood of the slain." This is notable for its metaphor of drinking blood as the notion was, in theory, forbidden in Leviticus 17:10-11 for its idea that the blood is life itself. I can hear it now, "this is a metaphor!" or "it said drunk in the metaphor not eat" or whatever, but it is still fun to mention.
Numbers 25:6-9: They start impaling people for interracial (international?) marriage--totally normal behaviour for a priest of God. The footnote for these verses states, "Marriage between an Israelite man and a Midianite woman here condemned [that's one way of putting it], but Moses's wife Zipporah was a Midianite (Ex 2.15-22)." The Lord is then like: the priest who impales people "has turned back my wrath from the Israelites by manifesting such zeal among them on my behalf that in my jealousy I did not consume the Israelites (Num. 25:11)." Uh... great.
---------------------------------------
Deuteronomy:
It has finally clicked. This whole story is a journey about the formation of an ethno-religious state, ordained by God, and an attempt to tell the mythological history of the conquest of the Israelites while simultaneously attempting to justify why the priest caste rules said state. Embedded within its historical context, it hardly meaningfully stands out from its contemporaries, but after all, very few modern readers attempt to let it tell that story or allow for it to suffer such a fate.
Deuteronomy 2:30-34: This is the third official genocide by my count (prev. Num. 21:33-35; Num. 31). Notably, similar to the pharaoh of Egypt, King Sihon of Heshbon had his spirit hardened and his heart made defiant by the Lord. Sihon's people take up arms against the Israelites because of this, and they are slaughtered. "[...] we struck him down, along with his offspring and all his people. At that time we captured all his towns, and in each town we utterly destroyed men, women and children. We left not a single survivor." This is notable because in the previous chapter (1:39), Moses is talking about Israelite children who do not yet "know right from wrong," hinting at a metaphysics (or is it ontology? lol) of human development. With this in mind, it seems that the children of the people of Heshbon are punished without their knowing why, and that fact does not seem to matter. This is likely just a continuation of the theme of God imposing punishment on future generations for the sin of the ancestor.
Deuteronomy 4:6-8: "You must observe them diligently, for this will show your wisdom and discernment to the peoples, who, when they hear all these statutes, will say, 'Surely this great nation is a wise and discerning people!' For what other great nation has a god so near to it as the Lord our God is whenever we call to him? And what other great nation has statutes and ordinances as just as this entire law that I am setting before you today?"
This verse totally breaks open the 4th wall! This awareness about how the "great nation" appears to other people is the first (and maybe last) claim in this chapter about why one would want to follow the statutes--not a concern for the 'feelings' or whatnot of God! Also notable the use of the word wise and its mixture with the concept of "just" law makes this verse very clearly embedded in a particular world and historical context.
Deuteronomy 9:28: Moses reiterates how he asked God to forgive the people for their wickedness, "otherwise the land from which you have brought us might say, 'Because the Lord was not able to bring them into the land that he promised them, and because he hated them, he has brought them out to let them die in the wilderness'" (also in Num. 14:16; Deut. 32:27).
"Please, God, think of the optics! What if people doubt you?" works only on a god made with human hands.
In Deuteronomy 29:24-28, it brings to mind my critique from Lev. 26, and how the "uprooted" people are now found in another land due to abandoning God's covenant and thus are vomited from the land.
Deuteronomy 30:11-14: It talks about how the commandment (word of God?) is not far away in heaven nor across the sea but that, "the word is very near to you; it is in your mouth and in your heart for you to observe." This might be the first time that the implicit love of God is explicit.
---------------------------------------
Joshua:
In Joshua 5, the Israelites with Joshua cross the Jordan River in a similar way as they previously crossed the Red Sea. Afterwards they make a memorial out of 12 stones, as a reference to the 12 tribes of Israel, and this is where (I assume) the Christian rock (hehe) band "12 Stones" get their name.
Joshua chapters 10-12 discuss the many conquests and genocides, and so many so that I struggled to count them all. It tops off the horror with Joshua 11:19-20 saying, "There was not a town that made peace with the Israelites except the Hivites, the inhabitants of Gibeon; all were taken in battle. For it was the Lord’s doing to harden their hearts so that they would come against Israel in battle, in order that they might be utterly destroyed and might receive no mercy but be exterminated, just as the Lord had commanded Moses."
So, good news if you thought these people had free will, and thus didn't deserve mercy--it is actually opposite. They lose their free will and don't deserve mercy! I don't want to keep side-eyeing Biblical morality, but I can't help but go 'hmm.'
Joshua chapters 13-19 might be the biggest struggle so far. It is mostly boundary drawing allotments for the 12(ish) tribes of Israel, and it is painful. Only notable exception is the interesting framing of Joshua 19:9.
For as many times as it reminds you that Levites get no land inheritance, it sure does take a lot of time to describe their land inheritance (cities and pastures) in chapter 21!!! I'm not just being petty and pedantic, it is actually frustrating knowing that city-states were one of the most powerful power centralisations of the time.
---------------------------------------
Judges:
Judges 1:19 says, "The Lord was with Judah, and he took possession of the hill country, but could not drive out the inhabitants of the plain, because they had chariots of iron."
If they feel the need to include that God was with Judah, why does he not win? They say, "because they had chariots of iron" rather than "because God didn't want them to win." Almost as if they want to blame God for their loss against superior technology.
---------------------------------------
Ruth:
Ruth 2:10-12: "Then she fell prostrate, with her face to the ground, and said to him, “Why have I found favor in your sight, that you should take notice of me, when I am a foreigner?” But Boaz answered her, “All that you have done for your mother-in-law since the death of your husband has been fully told me, how you left your father and mother and your native land and came to a people that you did not know before. May the Lord reward you for your deeds, and may you have a full reward from the Lord, the God of Israel, under whose wings you have come for refuge!”
Without a doubt one of the sweetest things in the Bible so far.
Ruth 4:15 is also one of the sweetest things, "He shall be to you a restorer of life and a nourisher of your old age, for your daughter-in-law who loves you, who is more to you than seven sons, has borne him.”
This statement is way bigger than it seems on first glance, at least to me. Ruth, to Naomi, is MORE than seven sons (seven here meaning the "full" amount of blessings that offspring can offer). So not only is Ruth more than seven sons, but she is that while being a foreign born woman AND a daughter-in-law--not even blood.
---------------------------------------
1 Samuel:
Hannah's prayer in 1 Samuel 2 is ironically plagued with arrogance and circular logic.
1 Samuel 8:4-8 makes me wonder, if God sends prophets/judges that can tell Israelites what God "really" wants, how would they recognise these prophets. It says earlier that the prophets would be known as prophets for professing the word of God, but in this case the heredity priestship that exists is being uprooted by God and only Samuel knows. From the normal Israelite perspective, there is potentially a power vacuum, but there is no reason to believe that it is God's will that Samuel fills this role and upends the previously established (in Deut. law) heredity priest caste. So as a believer I am (or would be) asking: how am I supposed to take the word of Samuel at this point? Is he like the prophets predicted by God, ones who speak the words of God while also spreading falsehoods about his law for their own gain? I have many, many answers to these questions, but none of them satisfy the problem, they are simply plausible responses.
1 Samuel 13: Saul waits for Samuel for the proper amount of time but Samuel did not show up, so Saul does a sacrifice of well-being. When Samuel returns he is mad at Saul for not following God's commandment. The footnotes go on to say, "The nature of Saul's sin is not clear, since he did wait for Samiel the prescribed time; perhaps he tried to usurp Samuel's role of religious leadership."
From my perspective, perhaps two separate things happen here. Saul loses faith in Samuel, and thus God, for Samuel's tardiness AND Saul usurps Samuel's authority as priest-judge hybrid by doing the sacrifice by himself. This is ironic but also makes sense if Samuel is self-conscious and insecure about his power because he himself usurped the priestship from Eli alongside the fact that Saul was appointed by God because the Israelites did not appreciate Samuel's leadership.
1 Samuel 25 is essentially the story of how a rich guy didn't give David and his men some food, so David decided to strap on his swords for war. The wife brings food down the street as he is leaving and David says,
"Blessed be the Lord, the God of Israel, who sent you to meet me today! Blessed be your good sense, and blessed be you, who kept me today from bloodguilt and from avenging myself by my own hand! For as surely as the Lord the God of Israel lives, who has restrained me from hurting you, unless you had hurried and come to meet me, truly by morning there would not have been left to Nabal so much as one male.” Then David received from her hand what she had brought him; he said to her, “Go up to your house in peace; see, I have heeded your voice, and I have granted your petition.” Then David marries the rich guy's wife when he dies.
David essentially rules like the literal mafia.
In Samuel 29, David is clearly setting up to betray King Achish, the king of the Philistines, and the king is seen as gullible for believing the hero of the Lord would betray God's people, the Israelites.
Once again, David is seen as deceitful, or alternatively cunning if you want to put a positive spin on it, and this reminds me of my previous commentary on European anti-semitism. David is seen as one of the most holy men of God in the Bible, a man who uses deceit and eventually has, at best, coerced sex with Bathsheba. There is an old stereotype, used frequently in Nazi Germany, that Jews are "defilers of your women" and "deceitful, not to be trusted," and I wonder how much the story of David was used for this very purpose.
---------------------------------------
2 Samuel:
First, I am confused at why David would accept his anointment as King of Judah without first consulting God. God, through the short answers, just told him to go to Hebron; you'd think he'd ask if this was what the Lord meant. Second, in 2 Samuel 3:11-12, why would David, who respects and loves Saul and his family, make a covenant with the head of the military to usurp the rightful power of Saul's son? Would David not have any reservations about this deal? Would he not seek God's insight for such a large event?
In 2 Samuel 4, continuing the question of the last paragraph, why does David care now about the Benjaminites (ofc the writers made Benjaminites do it) killing Ishbaal, Saul's son?
----------------
No more characters--fin
February 2, 2022
A well done translation. The books in this are really a hit/miss for me. I wasn't in love with Tobit, and the editions to Esther and Daniel, but I love 1 Maccabees and Judith. All of them were quite interesting, though.
January 29, 2023
yeah its alright
January 3, 2024
Fantastic. I plan to incorporate these into my yearly Bible reading plan each year.
March 17, 2026
This is probably my favorite version/edition of any Bible. The notes and headings are primarily from a scholarly perspective, which is useful both for academic/critical/and theological study of the text. The reputation of the NRSV itself needs no introduction. It is well organized, easy to read, easy to use as a reference. The supplementary content is relevant, worthwhile, without being overstuffed or stilted toward any one set of ideals.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews