What Study Bible do you feel has honest notes (not about translation)?

I feel the New Testament Recovery Version is a good one.Let me give some examples.It seems that this translation is one of the few Fundamentalist works (or only) that seems to see Galatians 2:12 as having "certain men" actually reflecting the views of James.

quote:

---

KJV

​

12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

---

Other Study Bibles and fundi commentaries say these are folks who don't represent James.But the NTRV is different.Here are the notes from 2:12 and it is honest on multiple levels.

quote:

---

p.819

​

i.e. from the church in Jerusalem. This is another indication that at that time James, not Peter, was the first among the apostles in Jerusalem.

​

This was contrary to the customary practice of the Jews in their keeping of the observances of the law.

​

This proves that at that time Peter was very weak in the pure Christian faith. In Acts 10 he had received an exceedingly clear vision from the heavens concerning fellowship with the gentiles, and he took the lead to practice it. What weakness and backsliding to shrink from eating with gentile believers out of fear of those of the circumcision! It is no wonder that he lost the leadership among the apostles.

---

More on the issue of these views representing James later. (it will become clear later)This translation seems to see the issue in Galatians not as an issue of which meats (if any) one can eat, but an issue of simply eating with gentiles period.The Acts 10 commentary is actually pretty accurate (based on the notes I took years ago).This was where uncircumcised gentiles were allowed to become Christians without circumcision.Before an Italian could become a Christian, Peter saw a vision of all sorts of unclean animals, and the Acts text had God telling Peter to slaughter the animals and eat. It meant that gentiles (uncircumcised) were not foreigners and could partake of the Passover meal(which Jesus was seen as a replacement for) which Exodus 12 said was not allowed. Early Christians described themselves as a living sacrifice.It had nothing to do with eating meat.But fundamentalists say it does.Here are some notes from the New Testament Recovery Version.Only note 14 gets things wrong, but the rest is accurate.Then animals were symbolic of men (gentiles were commonly called pigs and dogs)

quote:

---

p.521

​

11 The vessel that was like a great sheet symbolizes the gospel spreading to the four corners of the inhabited earth to collect all kinds of unclean (sinful) people (Luke 13:29).

​

12 Symbolizing men of all kinds (v.v. 15, 28, and notes).

​

13 In this sign, to eat is to associate with people (v 28).

​

14 As taught in Lev. 11. Circumcision, Sabbath kepping, and a particular diet are the three strongest ordinances according to the law of Moses that made the Jews distinct and separate from the gentiles, whom the Jews considered unclean. All these scriptural ordinances of the Old Testament dispensation became an obstacle to the spreading of the gospel to the Gentiles according to God’s New Testament dispensation (15:1; Col. 2:16).

​

15 Referring to people whom God has cleansed through the redeeming blood of Christ (Rev 1:5) and the renewing of the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5; Acts 15:9).

​

p.522

​

28 This indicates that eventually Peter understood the significance of the vision he had seen in the trance (vv. 11, 17, 19), that is, that the animals in the great sheet represented men.

---

This is rare but accurate!Now to the issue of James.Most fundamentalists ignore the fact that James requires (at a minimum) that the old dietary restrictions be observed by both Jewish Christians and gentiles. So they twist the meaning of Acts 15.Not the New Testament Recovery Version!See note to Acts 15:21

quote:

---

p.544

​

21 This indicates that the concluding word given by James was still under the influence of the Mosaic law because of James’s heavy Judaic background (see notes 26 in James 1 and 10 in James 2). The influence of this background remained, even at the time Paul paid his last visit to Jerusalem (21:20-26).

---

Here are NTRV notes in the Epistle of James

quote:

---

p.1099

​

10 The word in vv. 8-11 indicates that the Jewish believers at James’s time were still practicing the keeping of the Old Testament law. This corresponds with the word in Acts 21:20 spoken to Paul by James and the elders in Jerusalem. James, the elders in Jerusalem, and many thousands of Jewish believers were still in a mixture of the Christian faith and the Mosaic law. They even advised Paul to practice a semi-Judaic mixture (Acts 21:17-26). They were unaware that the dispensation of law was altogether over

​

.

​

12 Based on vv. 8-11, which refer to the keeping of the law of letters, the law of freedom here and in 1:25 refers to the same law, the law of Moses. According to the context the royal law (v. 8), the Mosaic law, and the law of freedom are the same law. Thus, James taught the Jewish believers to keep the law of the Old Testament (4:11; cf. Acts 15:21; 21:20-25).

---

Note that "They were unaware" refers to James in note 10.Based on the written words of the Bibles we have today, there is a consistency in James' actions and words.I don't deny that the authors of this Study Bible have a theology just as screwed up as other Christians (today), because James actually was right on. Jewish Christians had to follow the law to the extent that the current Biblical text demands. There is no contradiction between James and the Biblical text in Acts.Gentile Christians had to follow certain laws too (though there was perhaps a semantic debate over whether it actually counted as the "Old Law" or some "newer" Christian moral commandment which allowed one to say "Gentiles don't follow the law anymore")Gentiles Christians had to follow even stricter food rules than the written law (Torah) as there are even more restrictive Oral Law restrictions in the Apostolic Council.This work at least speaks accurately concerning James' strong demand for Jewish Christians to follow the law. The problem is the New Testament Recovery Version fails completely to describe the fact that Jewish Christianity was LARGE in the first century and that it was supposed to go on forever, and not get killed off. Plus gentiles were very much supposed to join the Jewish Christian movement even though there was compromise on it came to the more Pauline Christian denominations.But I still appreciate the accurate scriptural readings (as represented in the notes) that can come when one tries to see past the prejudices of our day.The fact is simply this: dietary restrictions are too much for modern European Christians (and the whole world follows European Christian denominations) to handle. This fact will always prevent a truly honest reading of scripture, so this Study Bible will stop short of interpreting any scripture - even text with VERY CLEAR demands leading to any sort of self control among the faithful - in a way that bans eating of meat among today's (especially today's) Christians.But there was a way this Study Bible could allow for more straightforward & accurate readings if it was able to make these honest readings without having to demand change in moral behavior of its readers. There was an ability to be more scripturally honest without having to make demands among personal conduct among the faithful.The cost of a more accurate reading was to admit that Jesus' brother James disagreed with what they claimed (falsely) were the teachings of Jesus.That is not something that fundamentalists will do (until now it seems?)It also forced this commentary to take something of a "Satanic Verses" interpretation of Acts 15 and James 2. Simply declare it outdated scripture that was a bad compromise (like The Prophet of Islam did with a few of his pre-Koranic writings).Most (like 99.9%) fundamentalists won't like that.

quote:

---

1) You have a style of asking and answering your own questions all in one post. This basically overwhelms any response. Others may disagree with my assessment.

---

People can respond to any part they want. It doesn't have to be everything I said.People can give their own reasons for whatever part they feel like discussing.

quote:

---

2) Why must a simple question and statement become so convoluted and lengthy?

---

There is a requirement to explain views that are considered taboo and/or unheard of.

quote:

---

3) Finally...what do we define as honest?

---

I just noticed I screwed up a paragraph.Here is the correction (messed up paragraph remains)

quote:

---

The fact is simply this: dietary restrictions are too much for modern European Christians (and the whole world follows European Christian denominations) to handle. This fact will always prevent a truly honest reading of scripture, so this Study Bible will stop short of interpreting any scripture - even text with VERY CLEAR demands - in a way leading to any sort of self control among the faithful, specifically in a way that bans eating of meat among today's (especially today's) Christians.

---

I have the advantage of knowing the views of the earliest (Jewish and Gentile) Christian communities available outside the Biblical record (I am sorry to say that it is not until the 2nd century that we have anything, and maybe not even till a fair while after the 2nd Christian century started), so that might bias my reading of the first century documents.The first century documents are the Bible books and the Bible books alone.People will read the views of the 2nd century (or later) churches and Christian groups they find to represent the 1st century (Biblical) documents INTO THE FIRST CENTURY DOCUMENTS (The Bible).The question is then, "Just how much of what somebody finds, among 2nd-4th century Christian schools & doctrines & churches, to be consistent with 1st century documents (The Bible), it based on circular reasoning?".I might feel that certain numbers of critically-important 2nd century movements, having consistent commonalities of doctrine, will - in their cumulative weight - support a likely starting point in the first century (meaning they will perhaps be the views of certain prominent Christian leaders in 50 AD), BUT I must make an HONEST look at just what the Biblical text says.I can't just read over parts I disagree with.I have to look and see what is actually said.Everybody will gloss over certain things, but is any glossing over difficult and inconvenient testimony permissible?I am sorry to say that there SEEMS TO BE a handful of ENTIRE CHAPTERS that today's Christians would literally prefer to deface and erase if they ever did have to face a genuine reckoning with the text (which they don't in today's world we all live in and the situation will probably never change) and I mean there aren't enough people (like me) who bring up the inconvenient and nasty questions.Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Some here feel that most evangelical protestant Bible's are honest.So explain why some are even more so than others.(I am assuming that most fundamentalist Christians will think that the typical evangelical Study Bible is generally honest on all the important issues)

I will show a very likely Aramaic (called "Hebrew" during the time of Jesus and after) quote of Matthew 5.But first.Phat said:

quote:

---

It gets deeper than this. Take jar and Biblical Christians, for instance. jar adamantly claims to actually read just what the Bible says...and from this has developed an entire belief system which he would claim quite rightly came from the Bible. His position is influenced by other beliefs than Christianity, however. For starters, his beliefs are rooted in logic, reason, and reality first. The Biblical Christians, whom jar accuses of being largely dishonest, base their conclusions on what is interpreted collectively from Western translations. You, on the other hand, favor non-western translations.

---

I am o.k with Greek texts if they are genuinely in the language of the "original autographs" of their claimed authors. (Romans is written in Greek and it is indeed authentically written by Paul IN MY ESTIMATION)I am not 100% against Western language "Biblical texts".Phat said:

quote:

---

So some questions:

​

Do you base your conclusions on the tradition of what was written? Or...do you base your criteria for honesty on logic, reason, and reality as jar does?

---

I feel like I place the weight on what was written.There is not much else to go on.But I go back as far as possible (the first century IF POSSIBLE) to find the relevant texts (so I can know the relevant issues to FIRST century Jews and Christians)Phat said:

quote:

---

jar would claim that Jesus was born, lived, and died as a Jew. He thus wiould say that much of what Paul and the authors of the Gospel of John wrote were efforts to start a new religion. If so, do you agree? And what is it in the older texts that you favor is different?

---

I do see Jesus as a Jew, and having nothing at all to do with today's "Christianity" which is a European religion (with all blacks and Africans 100% following the latter btw).Jesus and his Jewish followers seem to have been called Nazarenes (though even the European Christians are called "Nazarenes" by Arabs and Hebrew-speaking Israelis today and perhaps always were THOUGH I DOUBT EUROPEAN CHRISTIANS WERE PROPERLY CALLED NAZARENES IN THE EARLY CENTURIES) back in the first century, and European Christians continued to call the Semitic Christians "Nazarenes" or "Nasoreans" from the 1st century-5th (and even beyond).I don't know if I see Paul as quite so far off from the Jewish Nazarene Christianity as many seem to feel he was. (I don't think Paul wanted the Nazarenes and Ebionites extinguished, and I almost can say I KNOW HE DIDN'T WANT THE HEBREW GOSPEL OF MATTHEW TO VANISH)Now, what about the "older texts"?Here is a clue (actually has an outright quote of Matthew) from what is today the Talmud.(The Gemara was the specific part I am looking at, and the Gemara is human commentary on the Mishnah, or the ORAL LAW, which was said to have been handed down at Sinai. Both were collected and put into the Talmud. The "Law of Moses" is the written law said to have been handed down at Sinai. Josephus and Jesus used the same Greek word for the ORAL LAW: (in English translation) Traditionshttp://www.come-and-hear.com/shabbath/shabbath_116.htmlWe have a quotation that is in today's Gospel of Matthew plus a very probable mention of Nazarenes. And an Aramaic play on the Greek word for Gospel (Greek word spelled the same in 2 Aramaic words but with dual meanings).The date of this Rabbinical quote, as well as the actual Rabbinical commentary itself, will be a debatable issue."Minim" are heretics.The issue is texts of heretics.Be Nizrefe probably is the Nazarene house of worship.

quote:

---

It was stated in the text: The blank spaces and the Books of the Minim, we may not save them from a fire. R. Jose said: On weekdays one must cut out the Divine Names which they contain, hide them,17 and burn the rest.

​

....

​

R. Joseph b. Hanin asked R. Abbahu: As for the Books of Be Abedan,23 may we save them from a fire or not? Yes and No, and he was uncertain about the matter.24 Rab would not enter a Be Abedan, and certainly not a Be Nizrefe;25 Samuel would not enter a Be Nizrefe, yet he would enter a Be Abedan. Raba was asked: Why did you not attend at the Be Abedan? A certain palm-tree stands in the way, replied he, and it is difficult for me [to pass it].26 Then we will remove it? Its spot will present difficulties to me.27 Mar b. Joseph said: I am one of them28 and do not fear them. On one occasion he went there, [and] they wanted to harm him.29

​

Imma Shalom, R. Eliezer's wife, was R. Gamaliel's sister. Now, a certain philosopher30 lived in his vicinity,and he bore a reputation that he did not accept bribes.1 They wished to expose him,2 so she brought him a golden lamp, went before him, [and] said to him, 'I desire that a share be given me in my [deceased] father's estate.' 'Divide,' ordered he. Said he [R. Gamaliel] to him, 'It is decreed for us, Where there is a son, a daughter does not inherit.' [He replied], 'Since the day that you were exiled from your land the Law of Moses has been superseded3 and another book4 given, wherein it is written, 'A son and a daughter inherit equally.'5 The next day, he [R. Gamaliel] brought him a Lybian ass. Said he to them, 'Look6 at the end of the book, wherein it is written, I came not to destroy the Law of Moses nor7 to add to the Law of Moses,8 and it is written therein, A daughter does not inherit where there is a son. Said she to him, 'Let thy light shine forth like a lamp.'9 Said R. Gamaliel to him, 'An ass came and knocked the lamp over!'10

​

http://www.come-and-hear.com/shabbath/shabbath_116.html

---

Matthew was quoted.Here is the Christian "Philosopher" mentioning the HEBREW GOSPELChristian "philosopher":"Since the day that you were exiled from your land the Law of Moses has been superseded and another book given""Look at the end of the book, wherein it is written, 'I came not to diminish the Law of Moses nor add to the law of Moses...' "Now understand the words."another book" (or sinful pages) is Aramaic 'awen gilyon which is unmistakably the same sound of Greek euangelion or "Gospel"(the Aramaic letter W is a V in modern Hebrew and the Greek U looks like a V and frankly the Greek word is fairly pronounced Evangelion. Aramaic Y is I in Greek and W is V or U.Aramaic can be a 100% transliteration of Greek GospelThere is also the Sifre Minim mentioned or "scrolls of the heretics"Here is scholarship on Shabbat 116 from:The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition
By James R. Edwards(same scholar's work also in "Non-canonical" Religious Texts in Early Judaism and Early Christianity
edited by Lee Martin McDonald, James H. Charlesworth, pp. 130-140 roughly)

quote:

---

pp.228-229

​

William Horbury sees Sabbat 116a-b as evidence - evidently the lone evidence - of a collection of Jesus-sayings in early Christianity. The quotation appears in a satirical story from the Talmud involving Imma Shalom, wife of Rabbi Eliezer and sister of Rabban Gamaliel II - the grandson of the Gamaliel mentioned in Acts 5:34, under whom the apostle Paul claims to study in Acts 22:3. A certain "philosopher" of high moral standing lives in their neighborhood. Shalom and Gamaliel hatch a plot to bribe him with a golden lamp to secure a favorable verdict from him and thus tarnish his reputation.

---

Then the quote that I quoted above.

quote:

---

P.230

​

Rabbi Eliezer was one of the most famous rabbis of his day. According to the Talmud, he was charged before a Roman governor with Christian leanings. In order to counteract Eliezer's Christian sympathies, his wife and brother-in-law conspire to bribe the "philosopher" in the story. The story is a clevel anti-Christian parody, beginning with the reference to the gospel as 'wn glywn. The phrase technically means "sin pages," but its vocalization, awen gilyon, is an unmistakable homophone for the Greek euaggelion, "gospel." Sabbat 116 does not mention the name of Jesus Christ, but substitutes instead the "gospel" as a personification of Jesus. Both Jewish and Christian interpreters are correct in taking the "philosopher" to be a Christian (spokesman), since he renders a decision based on the gospel. The lampoon ends with the light (= gospel) overturned by a donkey and placed under a bushel, which appears to be a reference to and mockery of the motif of the lamp/light in Matt 5:14-16. The image of a donkey overturning a lamp became a later rabbinic proverb. The point of the satire is to provide a legitimate Jewish response to the claims of Christians, as if to say: Whatever Jesus did, he neither added to nor subtracted from the Torah.

---

We have a Gospel here by Hebrew Christians.

quote:

---

pp. 230-231

​

Should that "gospel" be understood as a collection of sayings? It would appear not, for immediately before the Imma Shalom satire, Sabbat 116 addresses the problem of the books read by the Minim, which is usually an allusion to Christian literature. Sabbat 116 appears to give clues to the identification of this Christian literature, for the references to "the Books of be Abedan" and "Be Nizrefe" seem to reference the Ebionites and Nazarenes respectively. If so, then the "gospel" referenced in the subsequent Imma Shalom story would appear to be the Hebrew Gospel. No other gospel is introduced, and the context leads one to conclude that the gospel of the "Abedan" and "Nizrefe," mentioned immediately before, is the gospel referred to in Sabbat 116, and the source of the citation from it. These clues suggest that Sabbat 116 is not generic anti-Christian polemic, but directed rather to two Jewish-Christian sects, the Ebionites and Nazarenes, and to the Sifre Minim, the Hebrew Gospel they read.

---

The date seems to predate 82 A.D., which makes a lot of sense when one understands the dates of the curses against the heretics (not mentioned here).see birkat ha minim

quote:

---

p.232

​

We cannot be certain of the dating of the satire in Sabbat 116. K. G. Kuhn assigns the composition to the third century. The actual logion on which the satire is built appears to be much earlier, however. R. T. Herford argues for the historicity of the Talmudic story, at least in substance, by placing it in the early 70s. If this date is correct - and the dates of Rabbis Eliezer and Gamaliel II and the reference to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. all corroborate it - then the saying, "I came not to diminish the Law of Moses," could date to the first century. Whether or not it pre-dates canonical Matthew is not clear, but if it does, then the "Gospel" referred to would doubtlessly be the Hebrew Gospel - the same Hebrew Gospel mentioned just prior to the satirical story. If this is the case, then the quotation in Sabbat 116 is not only another independent witness to the Hebrew Gospel, but by far the earliest reference to it.

---

It is an extant reference to an undisputed historical person.

quote:

---

p.232

​

E.B. Nicholson, The Gospel according to the Hebrews, 147, offers further evidence of its essential historicity on the grounds that 1 ) from 82 C.E. until his death in 123, Rabban Gamaliel was president of the synagogue, and it seems unlikely that he would compromise the dignity of that office by the unseemly behavior reported in the satire, and 2 ) he did not succeed his father until the latter's death in 70 ; Nicholson thus concludes that 3 0 the event most plausibly falls between 70 and 82 C.E., immediately following the fall of Jerusalem.

---

It is a quotation of what is now in the Greek Matthew, but this quote is in Aramaic!And pre 82 A.D. makes the most sense by far.

quote:

---

The Birkat haMinim (Hebrew "Blessing on the heretics") is a Jewish curse on heretics (minim). Modern scholarship has generally evaluated that the Birkat haMinim probably did originally include Jewish Christians before Christianity became markedly a gentile religion.

​

Birkat haMinim - Wikipedia

​

Birkat haMinim - Wikipedia

---

Phat said:

quote:

---

Finally...what conclusions represent honesty? In your belief, who Was (and Is) Jesus?

​

Is the Westernized agenda of religion...driven largely by Martin Luther and John Calvin...a lie?

​

And where does the Roman Catholic Church fit into all of this?

​

Also the Eastern Orthodox?

---

They came after 82 A.D. and are all the followers of "salvation by faith".Catholics and Eastern Orthodox invented the Gospel of John and its tribal European faith religion.The Interpreters Bible 12 volume commentary said the Epistle of James was written by Ebionites, and same from the same group that followed Matthew 5:17-18.Now the modern day b.s. attempts to turn everything upside down.Modern 21st century (as well as 16th century) commentary attempts to present a modern day European debate as the Epistle of James being a Roman Catholic document verses the Gospel of John being a Protestant-ish document.That is a complete disregarding of any sort of relevant context surrounding the 1st century debates: the debates that actually involved the earliest Christians.Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

b. Shabbat 116"another book" has same Aramaic letters that would be used to transcribe "Gospel" from Greek.

quote:

---

Imma Shalom, R. Eliezer’s wife, was R. Gamaliel’s sister. Now a certain
philosopher lived in his vicinity, and he bore a reputation that he did not
accept bribes. They wished to expose him, so she brought him a gold lamp,
went before him, and said to him, I desire that a share be given me in my
[deceased] father’s estate. Divide, ordered he. [R. Gamaliel] said to him,
It is decreed for us, Where there is a son, a daughter does not inherit. [The
philosopher replied], Since the day that you were exiled from your land the
Law of Moses has been superseded and another book [= gospel ]
given, where it is written, ‘A son and daughter inherit equally.’ The next
day [R. Gamaliel] brought him a Libyan ass. [The philosopher] said to them,
Look at the end of the book, wherein it is written, ‘I came not to diminish
the Law of Moses nor to add to the law of Moses, and it is written therein,
‘A daughter does not inherit where there is a son.’ [Imma Shalom] said to
him, Let thy light shine forth like a lamp. [R. Gamaliel] to him, An ass
came and knocked the lamp over.67

---