The CSB Ancient Faith Study Bible

[@bmmk12]

The Masoretic vs LXX is something I just never thought of when thinking about picking a Bible to use with the Church Fathers! Your insight and presentation is simply unmatched! You are a wealth of knowledge!

[@tabletalk33]

The MT wasn't completed until about the year +1000, so, obviously, it wasn't around when the Early Church Fathers were writing this material. There were, of course, earlier Hebrew materials that they sometimes consulted. Complicating this picture was the fact that there were multiple, and conflicting Jewish canons in the NT period. Hebrew had already gone out of common use by the Hellenistic Age, having turned into Aramaic, and the latter being challenged by the Greek language. Aramaic, too, began to give way to Greek for a lot of Jews, esp. in Egypt. So, early Church Fathers MOSTLY used the LXX, or what I call GOT (Greek Old Testament) materials. It was only natural that such Jews wanted scriptures in a language that they understood best and that was current, useful for missionary purposes, and "modern," if you will. For them, that meant the Greek language. Isn't it ironic that the Jews ceased using THEIR OWN Hebrew language scriptures in favor of Greek ones (LXX), but then ceased using the Greek ones and went back to the Hebrew, and then compiled a whole new Hebrew collection in the MT by the year +1000? Isn't it even more ironic that the ancient Christian writers predominantly used the Greek ones (LXX), but later gave them up for the Hebrew, and then the MT Hebrew? Wow! Isn't it even more ironic that early Christians, who used the LXX as their primary OT source until the fifth century, gave it up and shifted to using the MT as their primary OT source? The majority of Old Testament quotes made by the NT authors come from the LXX. The LXX is FAR older than the MT and often has superior readings, esp. when it agrees with the Dead Sea Scrolls, even if it is a translation. The LXX is often used as a corrective text when the MT gets incoherent or is called into question. The importance of the LXX for the history of scriptural history can hardly be overstated. Why then would Christians trust the MT over the LXX? The MT is a historically late collection (+1000) compiled by Jews naturally biased against Christians. DEVIN ROSE, in an online article of 3/1/2014, stated, "...this meant that the Reformers goofed when they relied upon the Masoretic text and the (truncated) Hebrew canon in their attempt to go 'back to the original sources.' They should have used the Septuagint translation and included the seven deuterocanonical books! Thus, the argument that Christians should base their Old Testament off of the Hebrew Bible rather than the Greek Septuagint is dubious." Source: www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/protestantisms-old-testament-problem

[@deuslaudetur2451]

@@tabletalk33 I’ve been looking into this subject in multiple books and videos but you’ve pretty much summed it up greatly in your comment. I have gotten my first LXX OT Bible (I own the Brenton LXX as well)

[@tabletalk33]

​@@deuslaudetur2451The Greek OT is necessary to get a more accurate and complete understanding of the scriptures. In my opinion, the "Reformers" made a serious mistake in selecting the MT as their OT (partly because compiled by Jews who could be expected to retain an unfair bias against Christians and their practices, and partly because the LXX is FAR older than the MT and is a translation from a different Hebrew scriptural tradition from that of the MT). At most, the MT is of historic, linguistic, and comparative importance, and should be seen and studied in that light. It should not serve as the PRIMARY text for church use just because it is written in Hebrew. Like the LXX, the NT is not written in Hebrew either, but its Greek textual authority is not disregarded for that reason. Why should the OT be any different?

[@CounterC]

I’m a fan of the Ancient Faith Study Bible. As someone who is only willing to dabble around the edges of early church theological controversies, I felt that the Ancient Faith Study Bible might be a good way to gain an understanding of these subjects at a very cursory and admittedly, non-scholarly level. Your review confirmed this. I very much appreciate your KZbin channel. Thank you.

[@RGrantJones]

Thank you for commenting, Counter C6909! I think your assessment is accurate.

[@nailtoncesardossantos136]

I purchased this bible through your precious reviews, I found it interesting with valuable comments from ancient fathers. May God always bless you and for inspiring you in wise revisions.

[@RGrantJones]

Thank you for that encouraging comment!

[@joepi7t]

I purchased this Bible solely off your review. I was on the fence and this thorough and complete review pushed me over the edge to get it.

[@susyhebner2543]

So did I! 😊

[@chris12780]

Was able to purchase my own copy because of your review. It is just so superb.

[@makarov138]

Wow, had to make a comment on this video. You showed a side-by-side of this bible and an Orthodox Study Bible that I instantly recognized. That's a wonderful study tool to have, especially for OT study. And their usage of the NKJV for the NT is actually my go-to bible! Just had to throw that in there. Keep up with the reviews, we enjoy them.

[@donaldmartineau8176]

Another stellar review! I found it very interesting to discover how the early church fathers viewed some of the passages you laid out for us. I consider buying this bible. Thanks again.

[@Clementkouroukis]

Thanks Grant for doing this finally! This is one of my very favorites bibles and my hope is that people begin to take seriously the church fathers again. God Bless you!

[@RGrantJones]

You're welcome, CLEMENTKOUROUKIS! May God bless you and yours also!

[@evangelicalstuff9239]

Superb work as always, brother. Thanks for posting.

[@RGrantJones]

Thanks very much for the encouraging comment!

[@SeraphMowlid]

Very impressive review thank you for taking the time to do this.😁

[@RGrantJones]

Thank you for the encouraging comment!

[@alpha4IV]

On where they got their sources for their commentary I noticed it was from IVP too. I just noticed this last night, years after you made this video. But I too found it odd, as the commentary didn’t seem to line up with the philosophy behind the translation of the Text. I understand why, but I do think they should have changed the commentary to match the translation they were pairing it to when quoting the scripture in the commentary. But it was very honest of them although I found it shady that they edited out some “Catholic” and “Orthodox” words or sentences when trimming their selections for the commentary. Understanding that they had to make decisions to make what they selected fit the physical space allotted for the commentary.

[@ongraymatters7224]

I thoroughly enjoy your reviews!

[@RGrantJones]

Thank you for the kind comment, Dani Bin!

[@GoldenWarriorMTL]

Great review as always.

[@RGrantJones]

Thank you, XPISTIANOS MTL!

[@charlene1977]

Like your thoroughness.

[@catholicbiblereviews5581]

Fantastic, I will pop a link to this video in my own look at this Bible. I think this really does shine most in the non-polemical passages. More polemical passages can seem at worst one sided and at best incomplete. I also have not found anything substantial on the soteriological aspects of baptism.

[@RGrantJones]

Thanks for commenting, Catholic Bible Reviews, and for letting me know what you've observed regarding the commentary on baptism!

[@balconnt]

Great job. Looks like an interesting Bible.

[@RGrantJones]

Thank you, B!

[@JCATG]

Oh, wow! I never thought that you would actually review this CSB version with the Ancient Fathersʼ study guide. Thank you for the comprehensive review. 👍🏼 Great video as always!

[@RGrantJones]

Thank you for commenting, Nikko R!

[@donwright5997]

Keep up the good works. God-bless you. How many Bibles do you think Are published.

[@RGrantJones]

Thanks for commenting, Don. I have no idea how many editions of the Bible are published.

[@treeckoniusconstantinus]

I've come back to this video a few times because I enjoy seeing the ACCS, which I myself don't own any volumes of yet. This time watching, something popped into my head while seeing you pull out the ACCS volume: Seeing the combination of the footnotes under each individual RSV verse to highlight LXX differences with the MT and the Fathers' comments that, as you put it at 34:15, sometimes "correct" the MT, I'm curious as to just how extensive those LXX footnotes are in the ACCS. Are they extensive enough, in your opinion, that one could conceivably, between them and the occasional "corrections" in the Fathers' annotations, reword/re-edit the RSV OT to become LXX compliant? Or that an RSV user could utilize the ACCS in lieu of the NETS, LES, or Brenton to emulate a LXX companion for reading the OT? Or are the ACCS's LXX notes only partial and insufficient for such usage? Setting aside cases like Jeremiah, of course, where the LXX material is significantly reordered.

[@RGrantJones]

Thanks for the question, Treeckonius. Unhappily, I own only the ACCS volume on Genesis. In that book, I think one could alter the RSV into a close approximation of the LXX using those textual notes. I doubt, however, that procedure would be successful in a book like Jeremiah, where (as you noted) the differences are more radical. But I could be wrong, since I've never seen the ACCS volume on Jeremiah.

[@treeckoniusconstantinus]

@@RGrantJones Thanks for the reply. I'm just fascinated by the possibly because I, like you, have an affinity toward the RSV, and seeing those glimpses inside the ACCS Genesis make me ponder whether the more faithful, pastristics-influenced LXX translation many have clamored for in your comments section and in various Catholic and Orthodox spheres could be, at least somewhat, right under our noses.

[@Eisho.G]

I have this beautiful bible although it doesn't have the deuterocanonical books and I'm not very keen on the scripture translation. Specially OT Septuagint, that's why I keep going back to my OSB.

[@GWwise3642]

Great video very instructive.

[@mikemacelfresh4532]

I picked up nice goatskin version. Love it!

[@Starkwolf88]

Very strange they did not include the apocrypha, also a strange translation to do this in. Orthodox recommends the kjv or nkjv and are in line with majority text translations. The csb is a critical text base. Im unsure if its worth it, just finished the kjv study bible and have the life application & csb study bible. also want to read through the esv study notes.

[@1aureodarocha]

30:25 - Mr Grant Jones, could you make available the list with the 100 readings in the old testament that contain these well-known variants?

[@RGrantJones]

Yes, these are the locations I check: Gen 1.9, Gen 4.8, Gen 7.3, Gen 38.5, Gen 41.7, Gen 41.22, Gen 41.24, Gen 47.21, Gen 47.31, Ex 1.1, Dt 5.5, Dt 8.19, Dt 10.13, Dt 31.1, Dt 32.8, Dt 32.43a, Dt 32.43b, Dt 32.43c, Dt 32.43d, Dt 33.8, Dt 33.17, 1 Sm 2.1, 1 Sm 2.8-10, 1 Sm 2.10-11, 1 Sm 2.33, 1 Sm 6.3, 1 Sm 9.25, 1 Sm 10.1, 1 Sm 10.27-11.1, 1 Sm 11.1, 1 Sm 14.41, 1 Sm 17.4, 1 Sm 20.41, 1 Sm 23.14, 2 Sm 8.7, 2 Sm 12.16, 2 Sm 13.21, 2 Sm 15.8, 2 Sm 24.20, Ps 8.2, Ps 22.16, Ps 38.19, Ps 40.6, Ps 69.10, Ps 69.22-23, Ps 119.37, Ps 138.1, Ps 144.2, Ps 145.5, Ps 145.13, Pr 3.12, Pv 3.34, Pv 11.31, Is 6.10, Is 7.14, Is 10.22, Is 11.10, Is 14.4, Is 14.30, Is 19.18, Is 21.8, Is 23.2-3, Is 29.13, Is 33.8, Is 34.5, Is 37.25, Is 40.5, Is 40.13, Is 42.4, Is 49.12, Is 49.24, Is 51.19, Is 52.5b, Is 53.8, Is 53.9, Is 53.11, Is 59.20, Is 60.19, Is 61.1, Is 65.1, Jr 3.1, Jr 31.32, Dn 2.28, Dn 5.7, Dn 8.2, Dn 8.4, Jl 1.17, Am 5.26, Am 9.12, Hb 1.5, Hb 1.8, Hb 1.17, Hb 2.1, Hb 2.4, Hb 2.5, Hb 2.16, Zch 10.12, Zch 14.5a, Zch 14.5b, Mal 2.16 .

[@aaronmueller5802]

I found a good deal on some used volumes of the Ancient Christian Commentary series. Would you recommend them? In this video you seemed lukewarm on them at best.

[@RGrantJones]

I wasn't highly impressed with the one volume I bought. My sense was that the editors selected comments that modern readers would be more or less comfortable with.

[@aaronmueller5802]

@@RGrantJones Ah, that makes sense. I decided to pick up the volume on 1 and 2 Corinthians to get a feel for the choices. It was only $8, so I hope to get my money's worth.

[@markw5144]

Really good review and explanation - thank you! Also...what brand mechanical pencil is that? :)

[@RGrantJones]

Thank you for the kind comment! It’s a Pentel GraphGear 500 PG523.

[@jkbugout]

45:43 here is an accurate assessment! This is why the Ancient Faith Study Bible sucks. It seems that Holman chose texts that did not contradict their own Baptist, once saved always saved, pretrib rapture, etc., doctrines... You won't even find any quotes on several major passages... Why make a Bible that quotes "the fathers" to show their faith if you try to cover their faith up? Their favorite source was one of the least "ancient" of the "fathers," Augustine. Largely a waste of money. Looks nice, though. It just sucks. I'd recommend A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs if you are looking for a single-volume work containing quotes from the "fathers." See also "The Salvation Bible Commentary."

[@iamVarcana]

loved your video!

[@RGrantJones]

Thanks, Peter!

[@peterwycka7222]

I have a book review suggestion for the Vaticanus bible. It is the text and font used in codex Vaticanus. It is just the Gospels but it looks really nice.

[@RGrantJones]

I've seen that one advertised, I think. Thanks for the suggestion!

[@sluggo562]

I couldn't agree more. It's a real pity that they didn't include apocrypha used by the early church or a translation which better reflects the commentary. I suppose its intended audience is evangelicals who are paranoid of being tempted by false teachings.

[@legacyandlegend]

Honestly, when I heard this bible was in the csb translation, I was highly disappointed. The csb is nothing more than a baptist translation. This bible is crap because the translation and the notes aren't about the early church. It's about protecting the false teachings of baptists. Anyone who honestly studies church history will either be roman Catholic, eastern orthodox, anglican, or lutheran. Anything else walks away from what the early church was. I don't recommend this bible.

[@gogeta097]

How would you compare this to the Orthodox Study Bible? Also, are there study Bibles that are more Western/Latin?

[@RGrantJones]

Dr. JPEG - thanks for the question. They differ in a number of ways. The OSB includes several additional books. The notes in the CSB Ancient Faith Study Bible are all quotations from ancient writers. That's only sometimes the case with the OSB. The OSB Old Testament is usually (I wish I could say always) based on the Septuagint. The CSB Ancient Faith Study Bible Old Testament is based on the Hebrew Bible. I can't think of a study Bible with quotations largely from ancient writers who wrote in Latin, but there may be one.

[@krjohnson29]

This is a fascinating concept for a study bible, and I wish they made a Catholic Edition.

[@krjohnson29]

Really love the format that you showed this one having too. One of the most beautifully presented bibles you've reviewed in my opinion.

[@kilgen28]

Several of these fathers spoke of justification by faith without the works of the law, that is meritorious works. Are any of these quotes in this Bible?

[@RGrantJones]

Thanks for the question! In Romans, I find a few quotations that speak of justification by faith. There's one from Cyril of Alexandria on Romans 4.2, for instance, and one from Ambrosiaster on 4.15. A quotation from Augustine appears at Romans 4.20-21 to the effect that we can have confidence that God who produces faith will complete our salvation. A quotation from Ambrosiaster, which appears at Galatians 3.18, states that "Abraham was justified through faith alone."

[@kilgen28]

R. Grant Jones Thank you very much, this is helpful to me in considering whether to give this as a gift to a Reformed grandson who is dating a Roman Catholic, as this Bible is recommended by both RC and Protestants. I was fearing too many selective omissions. Of course I should buy one and examine for myself. On another matter, I noticed that there are quotations from Origen and a “twisted truth” article on Origen. If there is not some explanation of that, it could be confusing.

[@edwardgraham9443]

Really does look a like great Bible and I like the layout, it looks really nice. It's all black letter whi is how Bibles are to be and the font look easy to read. This would make an excellent Bible for some who loves the CSB translation.

[@RGrantJones]

Thanks for taking the time to comment, Edward! It's well made, has some very nice features, and the commentary gives the reader quite a lot to think about. It's not designed to resolve all of the reader's difficulties, like some study Bibles attempt to do, but it certainly shows passages in a different light.

[@edwardgraham9443]

@@RGrantJones Very few, if any Bible would ever solve all the readers difficulties, but what you wa t Isa Bible that is consistent with its purpose. This does look a really good Bible, but I'm not too familiar with the translation. As far as I know this translation is not here in Jamaica, but then again few are. I really like the Nasb but can't find one here and they are a bit out of my reach to buy online, especially now that I hear that Thomas Nelson is coming out with a wide margin nkjv reference Bible next year (have you heard anything about this?) and I want to start saving for one.

[@RGrantJones]

@@edwardgraham9443 - I had not heard about the NKJV wide margin. That's excellent news!

[@edwardgraham9443]

@@RGrantJones Yeah, I saw that new on another channel and also on Thomas Nelson's channel where I made a comment about it and someone responded that Nikki Getman of Thomas Nelson had told them that will be their next project. I belive they said it will be released in the premier collection and well as in leathersoft editions. This is very exciting news indeed as I've always been wanting one forever. This is why I as much as I want an NASB Bible, I can't because I have to save for this NKJV Wide Margin, my holy grail, of bibles.

[@RGrantJones]

@@edwardgraham9443 - thanks for letting me know. I must say I don't watch very many Bible reviews - usually just when I'm interested in purchasing a particular edition. I used to hear news in the Facebook Bible groups, but I found those groups too distracting and left. So I really appreciate it when viewers here keeping me up to date.

[@michaelg4919]

Will you do a review of the ESV church history study bible as well?

[@RGrantJones]

Yes. I'm reading through the notes in Hebrews now. I may be able to post a review in a week or two.

[@michaelg4919]

@@RGrantJones Nice, thank you so much!

[@anothervu]

Interestingly, the copy I have put "and the son" of the Nicene creed in brackets with a foot note saying it wasn't in the original creed but probably added in the council of Toledo in 589

[@darkstreamfish2729]

Does it contain Baruch like the Orhodox Study bible?

[@RGrantJones]

No, it doesn't. Thanks for the question, Dark Stream Fish!

[@fr.davidbibeau621]

This Bible is beautifully done. It honestly just picks and chooses what it wants from Oden. One thing I found a little deceitful was that they did not use the quote from Augustine in James 2. It is dangerous to only like the fathers in quotes.

[@RGrantJones]

Thanks very much for the comment, Fr. David! Could you give us the gist of that comment on James 2? I don't have that volume of ACCS.

[@wisconsinwoodsman1987]

Would love to see videos from you on your favorite Bibles. Thanks for considering.

[@PrentissYeates]

Off topic, what kind of watch are you wearing? Your reviews are extremely thorough and quite good. I won this bible in a contest, it’s a good reading experience.

[@RGrantJones]

It's a Seiko SNK803, self-winding automatic. Not very accurate, but I like it. (Mine runs about 5 minutes fast a week.) Congratulations on winning a copy of the CSB Ancient Faith Study Bible!

[@PrentissYeates]

Thank you, for that information. I always have been a fan for automatic watches,. Great channel- I’ve tried to out of date study bibles/ my favorite is Dicksons Analytical study bible. If you come across one, please review.

[@RGrantJones]

@@PrentissYeates - yes, I will. I'd like to take a close look at one. Thanks for the suggestion.

[@mclyker]

I think Shoe is used in place of "bolts of your gate" instead of one or the other. Really enjoyed this review.

[@RGrantJones]

Thanks for commenting, Matt C. You're probably right. Glad you found the video useful.

[@Scott619B]

I read a rumor (on Amazon) that this Bible does NOT contain the Apocrypha/Deuterocanon... Is that true? No place that I have seen actually shows the table of contents.

[@RGrantJones]

It is true. You can see the Table of Contents at the 21:42 point, where I mentioned that those books are absent.

[@ramodemmahom8905]

Which one do you recommend for someone who wants a good English translation of the Bible with goof commentary to understand its meaning: the CSB or the Orthodox Study Bible? Thanks.

[@RGrantJones]

They're both good choices. The OSB contains more books than the CSB AFSB. For some people, that's fatal for the CSB AFSB. If you like a sampling of patristic commentary, the CSB AFSB is better. Both are good translations, but the CSB Old Testament is based on the Masoretic text, while the OSB generally (though not always) follows the Septuagint. The CSB New Testament is based on modern critical Greek New Testament editions, while the OSB New Testament is based on the Textus Receptus, a sixteenth century critical Greek New Testament. Overall, I consider the OSB superior, but I don't doubt many people disagree with me.

[@ramodemmahom8905]

@@RGrantJones Thanks a lot! I ordered the OSB. One last, albeit similar question: Of all the Bible translations + commentaries you know of, which one would you recommend? Would it still be the OSB or do you find another one superior? (I am a beginner, to be clear, who recently began studying religions and wish to have a go-to reference) Thanks again.

[@charachoppel3116]

Those summarizations in the beginning describing dimensions and more are helpful. But one important thing is missing: which are the fonts?

[@RGrantJones]

Chara - I give information on font *sizes* on those charts. I don't name them because I usually don't know what they're called. Thanks for commenting!

[@BMB125]

Is it worth getting this Bible if one already has the ACCS set?

[@RGrantJones]

I would say no. But perhaps someone would value its portability.

[@BMB125]

@@RGrantJones I don’t read the CSB, but I guess the additional articles might make it worth it. Thanks for the reply

[@mwidunn]

John Henry Newman once said: "To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant."

[@johnevans8752]

Very true.

[@SeekYHWHsface]

SHALOM

[@ryansantoni]

Great review thanks, I was surprised at Justin Martyrs take on the Eucharist and I think he alluded to baptismal regeneration? Although that’s always left somewhat ambiguous. I think I need to stop listening to Protestants or Catholic’s and there perspective on patristic theology and just read the stuff myself, I’ll end up a Roman Lutheran orthodox Presbyterian lol.

[@RGrantJones]

Thanks for the kind comment, Ryan! Reading them for yourself is the best plan. I find it a bit of a puzzle deciding how to use these writers in my theological calculus. I think they're of most value when they tell us what was believed and practiced in their own time. So, in my view, the closer they are to the apostles, the more interesting they are. But I don't want to give the impression that the exegesis and Scripture-based theological reflections of the later writers are of no value. It's just that, since they're humans, they're capable of error. (And the earlier writers are also capable of error: if I recall correctly, Irenaeus thought Jesus was about 50 when he was crucified.)

[@RGrantJones]

@@anonimo-um2ng - thanks for the comment!

[@RGrantJones]

@@anonimo-um2ng - may God bless you also!

[@acardnal]

What is the name of the book you are using to quote the Fathers when you are discussing Daniel and Revelation?

[@RGrantJones]

The material from Hippolytus and Justin Martyr comes from the Ante-Nicene Fathers series. It, together with the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers series, is multi-volume collection of books containing writings from the first few centuries. You can read it online free -- www.ccel.org/fathers . Justin is in volume I and Hippolytus, volume V of the Ante-Nicene Fathers.

[@acardnal]

@@RGrantJones Thanks much!

[@danieljoshua4352]

Brother Jones, would you please tell me what are names of those books you are referring???

[@RGrantJones]

Thanks for the question, Daniel! Can you tell me where in the video I mention the books you want to know about? A time stamp would be helpful.

[@danieljoshua4352]

@@RGrantJones 34:43, Jones. Is it lexham English septuagint or is it any other septuagint??

[@RGrantJones]

@@danieljoshua4352 - the volume I hold in front of the camera at that point is the New English Translation of the Septuagint. kzbin.info/www/bejne/d6nao4iCqsupiJo . At about the 35:00 point I show the Lexham English Septuagint kzbin.info/www/bejne/jnukaJullN-IgKc . I hope that helps.

[@danieljoshua4352]

@@RGrantJones Thanks a lot, brother 🙏

[@AppalachianPaisano]

Looking for a good Catholic study bible but there aren't many options. Did you notice many ways this one directly contradicts Catholic teaching, specifically in the notes?

[@RGrantJones]

Thanks for the question, Mr. LaRouche. Perhaps someone who's used this Bible extensively can answer your question. I haven't examined the notes carefully with that question in mind. But it seems to me that it's more likely that the editor's selected quotations may, from time to time, give a skewed impression of patristic views rather than an outright contradiction of Catholic teachings.

[@AppalachianPaisano]

Thank you, that is what I kind of figured. I think I'll look into picking up a copy to check out. @@RGrantJones

[@jodygryczkowski132]

Does this contain the canon of Orthodox, or Protestant?

[@saulm58]

Probably you already know by now, but it contains the Protestant canon.

[@twfourofsix]

FYI: Since Augustine of Hippo's Latin name was Aurelius Augustinus Hipponensis, it IS proper to pronounce it "uh-GUST-in".

[@RGrantJones]

Thanks for commenting, twfourofsix! How do you respond to the argument based on the parallel to the way we pronounce 'Constantine' = Constantinus?

[@twfourofsix]

@@RGrantJones You've got me there! ;-) I guess it's just traditional in English to say his name that way! I enjoy your videos, by the way!

[@jacksonreinhardt2848]

If I already own the ACCS, is there anything new comment wise or is it, truly, a study-bible abridgment of that series?

[@RGrantJones]

Perhaps the articles and biographies contain material not in that earlier series. As far as the notes go, they appear to be an abridged version of those printed in the ACCS. Thanks for the view and comment!

[@jacksonreinhardt2848]

@@RGrantJones You mention the possible suppression of various patristic viewpoints, as well as the non-elaboration of viewpoints with regards to, say, baptism. Do you think the theological orientation of the publisher (B&H, the SBC imprint) played a role in this?

[@RGrantJones]

@@jacksonreinhardt2848 - I think the theological bias of the editors *may* have played a role in the selection of which comments to include. A similar bias may have played a role in the earlier selection of comments for the ACCS, where a Methodist was the general editor. But I want to emphasize that I haven't studied this volume carefully enough to be able to be confident that any such bias exists.

[@peterwycka7222]

Looks like a good family bible.

[@RGrantJones]

Thanks for taking the time to comment, Peter Wycka!

[@IndyDefense]

What is your favorite Bible? Which do you use the most often?

[@criticaltheist3992]

Translation? I think he likes the asb or pre-95 nasb and the rsv.

[@shawnhampton8503]

No Filioque!! Sad.

[@carolynpagliuca5657]

🤺⚖Not many foot notes🤔

[@RGrantJones]

It's not as heavily annotated as some study Bibles. But that allows for a larger font. Thanks for commenting!

[@MAMoreno]

The words of Christ are in black, but the words of Augustine are in red. There's a Protestant joke to be made here.