Monday, March 3, 2014

CEB Study Bible Sale

Available Monday, March 3 through Wednesday, March 5 only, we're offering the Bonded Brown Leather edition of the new CEB Study Bible at 50% off. This exclusive sale is available only through Cokesbury. To receive this discount—which is eligible for FREE standard shipping—enter promotion code CEB50 during check out. While supplies last.

This is the edition without the Deuterocanonical books.  I do miss the local Cokesbury store that closed in my area a few years ago.  


Michael Demers said...

I miss my local Cokesbury store, too.

Theophrastus said...

Yes, the did publish a study Bible with the deutercanonicals/apocrypha -- here is an Amazon link.

I have a copy and have been meaning to type up a review; however, I am unable to recommend this study Bible (even to someone who is a fan of the CEB translation.)

Timothy said...


Thanks for the link. Any reason why you wouldn't recommend it? Even briefly?

Theophrastus said...

My first big criticism of the CEB Study Bible is sloppy editing.

For example, on page 178AP (notes on Sirach by David deSilva), there is a sidebar with the following remarks:

Ben Sira's remarks about women were troubling even by ancient standards (see especially Sir 7:20-26; 9:1-9; 23:16-27; 25:13-26:27; 36:26-31; 40:19b; 42:9-14). His statements about daughters, in particular, were on reason that ancient rabbis gave for not including the book among the scriptures. He was, however, in many ways merely a spokesperson for widely held ideas of his time concerning women.[...]

That is a direct contradiction. Was Ben Sira "troubling even by ancient standards" or was he "merely a spokesperson for widely held ideas of his time"? If this book were better edited, surely this piece of writing would have been improved.

(I had not heard the theory that Ben Sira's remarks on daughters led to the book being denied canonical status. Most scholars assert that we do not have definitive knowledge of why Sirach was rejected from canon of the Hebrew Bible. I looked in David deSilva's big book on the Apocrypha, but he does not make that claim there. I also looked at the Anchor Yale commentary volume by Skehan and Di Lella; they include a variety of reasons why Sirach may have been rejected, but they do not include treatment of women as a reason. I also looked at Richard Coggins book, but it also provides no information on this point.)

My second major criticism of the study Bible is that it is missing important information. The CEB translates Genesis 1:1 as "When God began to create..." and has a textual note giving the alternative "In the beginning, God created...." Now I would expect a study note at this point explaining the two alternatives. Other study Bibles do have a note here -- including NOAB-RSV, NOAB-NRSV 4th ed., NJB, HarperCollins Study Bible 2nd ed., (Oxford) Jewish Study Bible, NABRE notes, NET Bible, and Norton Critical Edition of the English Bible. But there is no explanatory note in the CEB Study Bible.

Now these are just two examples, but I think they are representative of the entire book. If I have a chance to type up a full review, I hope to give many more examples.

Timothy said...


That is interesting. Thanks for citing some examples. If you would like to post your review here at any point, you would be most welcome to do so. Although I understand if you would post on BLT blog.

I have heard similar critiques of Ben Sirach and women before, but like you never within the discussion of the OT Canon.