Customer Reviews

KJV First Scofield Study Bible

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Here's a great example of the kind of good old-fashioned Bible scholarship that nobody seems to be doing anymore. C. I. Scofield had a very particular and sometimes even quirky way of interpreting the Bible, and his edition of the Bible is devoted to presenting that particular interpretation. That's both its strength and its weakness.

You won't find a balanced assessment of different schools of thought here. Scofield just dismisses anyone who disagrees with him as "puerile." Instead, what you get is a detailed exposition of his theory of "dispensations"--different periods in which God tested man's obedience to some specific revelation of his will.

Scofield writes notes on only those parts of the Bible that interest him and support his interpretation. The New Testament is much more heavily annotated than the Old, and in the Old Testament the Prophets are much more heavily annotated than the historical books, where often more than fifteen pages can go by without a footnote. If something puzzles you in one of the passages that don't interest him, Scofield gives you no help.

Scofield also omits the original King James translators' marginal notes and alternative readings, some of which are helpful to the average reader. One example I just happened to notice: Deuteronomy 32:44, where to "Hoshea the son of Nun" the King James translators added a note, "Or, Joshua," reminding us that Hoshea and Joshua are the same person. This particular verse apparently didn't interest him, so Scofield provided no note.

In short, this is not really a reference or study Bible; it's the text of the King James Version used as an extended illustration of Scofield's own theology.

Scofield's interpretation is compelling, however, and even if you're one of those "puerile" readers who don't always agree with him, you really ought to make his acquaintance. This book puts you in touch with one of the truly great minds of Biblical scholarship, and in fact its greatest strength is in how clearly Scofield's mind shines forth, with all its quirks and peculiarities. Every note will make you think. And if you disagree with him, so much the better--you'll think harder.

This facsimile edition is on the whole well printed. Some pages in my copy showed enough broken type and faded spots to remind me that I was reading a facsimile, but never enough to interfere seriously with legibility. The modern publishers have added Scofield's essay "Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth," which gives us even more insight into Scofield's thinking but is not nearly as entertaining as his notes in the Bible text itself.

I must now replace my worn out KJV Scofield Reference Bible (1967 ed.) which I received as a gift in thirty years ago, and I find that there is still nothing quite like it on the market. Although text critical scholarship may have moved on, the basics of a book that has lasted millenia do not change in a mere century. As chief editor to the combined bible, commentary, and chain reference Scofield provides the basics - and more - very well indeed. I have found nothing quite so precise, so concise, and nothing displaying such moderation and common sense, all couched in a style with minimal jargon.

For the Old Testament there is a one-page introduction to the Pentateuch, the historical books, the poetic and wisdom books, and the prophetic books. For example, there is a description of the key technique of Hebrew poetry (parallelism of thought) in the introduction to the poetical and wisdom books. The basic variations on this technique are demonstrated with great clarity and economy. For the New Testament there is an introduction to the gospels, the epistles of Paul, and the general epistles.

One of my most loved features is the concise concordance at the back, which is compiled with an eclectic brilliance. Some of the footnotes are small masterpieces of exposition, some push concepts such as typology much too far. But I do not suppose Scofield would have declared this work to be perfect, or incapable of being usefully updated - and it would be hard to say that about any reference book.

I must now replace my worn out KJV Scofield Reference Bible (1967 ed.) which I received as a gift in thirty years ago, and I find that there is still nothing quite like it on the market. Although text critical scholarship may have moved on, the basics of a book that has lasted millenia do not change in a mere century. As chief editor to the combined bible, commentary, and chain reference Scofield provides the basics - and more - very well indeed. I have found nothing quite so precise, so concise, and nothing displaying such moderation and common sense, all couched in a style with minimal jargon.

For the Old Testament there is a one-page introduction to the Pentateuch, the historical books, the poetic and wisdom books, and the prophetic books. For example, there is a description of the key technique of Hebrew poetry (parallelism of thought) in the introduction to the poetical and wisdom books. The basic variations on this technique are demonstrated with great clarity and economy. For the New Testament there is an introduction to the gospels, the epistles of Paul, and the general epistles.

One of my most loved features is the concise concordance at the back, which is compiled with an eclectic brilliance. Some of the footnotes are small masterpieces of exposition, some push concepts such as typology much too far. But I do not suppose Scofield would have declared this work to be perfect, or incapable of being usefully updated - and it would be hard to say that about any reference book.

I have always preferred my Scofield Bible simply due to all of the notes about the translation. I like that he gives much detail in many of the areas of the bible. This is the original edition so it contains much in notes, cross references, and much more.
If you are looking for a bible that gives a great deal of explanation this would be a great choice for you. The back of the bible gives us much of Scofield's idealology, and a wonderful cross reference section.
This bible is well made, and is attractive. There are some color maps in the back of the bible, as well as an area in the front for family history. Once again I emphasize if you are looking for a bible that is rich with details on the interpretation I highly recommend this one to you.

The Scofield study bible has helped me understand different areas of the bible much better. I enjoy reading it, and often have a hard time putting it down.

Of course you can't please everyone, but for those with faith and a belief, the Bible gives one an answer to every question. Those looking for faith and belief, it offers comfort and hope. God has given everything so you may have this book of books. Can you think of better reasons why you shouldn't give this book a try ? I can't

I have known many fundamentalists who engage in attacks on orthodox christianity. I could never understand how these people, claiming scripture alone, could argue things that are just plain unscriptural.

For instance: the rapture, anti-sacramentality, neo-gnostic theology, an emphasis on the Book of Revelation over and above the gospels, and over the words of Jesus Christ, a refusal to recognize the clear trajectory of salvation history etc. etc.

Then someone showed me the Scofield Bible. I was intrigued as I love the King James Version of the scriptures. However, when I read Scofield's notes everything made sense. This bible commentary is one of the most interesting, yet flawed, things I have ever read. By dividing up (some would say butchering) the scripture, Scofield has managed to produce an ahistorical and unorthodox commentary that has led generations astray.

When fundamentalists say that they take "the bible alone" as their authority, what they mean is that they take Darby's theology and Scofield's notes on the scriptures to be truth. Thus, their strange version of Christianity is only two hundred years old. Furthermore, they contradict themselves. First, they say they take the bible alone as their authority. Second, they only listen to Darbyist theology and only read Scofield's notes. Thus, Darby and Scofield become fundamentalist versions of the Catholic Magisterium. Only their interpretation is correct. Never mind that one must tear apart the scriptures to get at their version of "truth."

Now, some fundamentalists will point out that there is one obscure reference to the rapture in the early church. However, the VAST majority of the fathers thought otherwise. Furthermore, the one reference to the "rapture" that there is is vague and non-conclusive. Historic and orthodox christianity has always rejected the anti-sacramental and anti-grace version of the gospel of the Plymouth brethren and their fundamentalist offspring.

Anyone with a knowledge of history who has read the bible, and has read the various documents to come out of the early church, has heard Darby's and Scofield's rant before.

This commentary on the scriptures is neo-Gnostic heresy. What is most offensive is that it is packaged with the venerable King James Translation of the Bible.

Gnosticism is VERY popular nowadays. The DaVinci Code popularized it in novel form, and it is about to be made into a feature film staring Tom Hanks.

A quick history lesson is in order for anyone who would be bamboozled by a commentary rather than actually reading the word of God. Gnostics claimed that they were the true Christians, and that One, Holy, and Apostolic Church was apostate. They claimed only they were saved. They claimed to have "secret knowledge" that unlocked the scriptures, so thus only they could understand them correctly. They went so far as to write tons of books, and their own fictional accounts of the gospels and the end-times, to prove their point. (Sounds kind of like pre-tribulation dispensationalist "scholars" and the left-behind series all over again. Satan uses the same tactics over and over and some people are gullible enough to buy it over and over... Ignorance of history is fatal)

The Gnostics various writings were condemned by the Catholic church as heresy. The Catholic church restated the list of canonical scriptures, and defended the bible in the face of the gnostic attack. The Catholic church, guided by the Holy Spirit, was successful in its struggle against the gnostics, but the fight was not easy.

Neo-Gnostic fundamentalists sound exactly like the Gnostics of old. First Darby, Scofield, and their followers commit an intellectual and anti-Christian act of butchery by "rightly dividing" the word of God. This is because the scriptures must first be cut up to support their theology. The Gospels MUST be made to take a back seat if this commentary's vision is to be supported. The Sermon on the Mount for instance, with Jesus' teaching on how to live the Christian life, is incompatible with the dispensationalist view of human nature and salvation. However, dispensationalists who rely so heavily on Scofield's notes teach that Jesus' ministry on earth was for the Jews only and that when the Jews "rejected" Jesus, the church age resulted. Thus, the church is a "parenthetical insert" into salvation history. Sound nuts? It is. But it is essential for the neo-gnostic to achieve his purpose. By effectively removing the Gospels from primary consideration, the teachings of Jesus Christ can take a back seat to the book of revelation (the most important text to the dispensationalist) and the various letters of Paul. What makes these modern gnostics more subtle than their old time counterparts is that they can claim to hold to scripture while simultaneously attacking the gospel. Satan is amazingly effective when he gets ahold "theologians" who are prideful.

Just like the Gnostics of old, Darby and Scofield's first attack was on the Gospel itself.

But the butchery of the bible does not stop here. They rip First Thessalonians Chapter 4 entirely out of context and then try to link it with other unrelated passages. They do this in an unconvincing attempt to "prove" that the "true Christians" who have been granted the "secret knowledge" by "rightly dividing" the word of God will be "raptured" before the tribulation at the end of the world. (Sound Gnostic? It is)

The problem is that the pre-tribulation rapture is just plain unscriptural. Even 1 Thessalonians 4:15 is enough to stand the entire rapturist system on its head, given the fact that it is those who are LEFT that get to meet the Lord.

The scary thing is many people base their lives on this notion of the "rapture." They withdraw from the world and stop trying to do good because it makes no sense to "polish the brass on a sinking ship."

The historical view of most protestants, Orthodox Christians, and Catholics is that Christ will come again to judge the living and the dead. There is no way out of the "tribulation" or the suffering to come before his return, and there is no way to escape judgment: 200 hundred year old fundamentalist/neo-gnostic (and strangely liberal) additions to scripture notwithstanding.

It is these additions to scripture that are found in Scofield's notes. Fundamentalists elevate this commentary to the level of scripture itself, and that is dangerous to say the least.

Believe it or not, there is a part of me that would like to be convinced by fundamentalist theology. My life would be SO MUCH EASIER! I could stop worrying about living a Christian life. I could stop being concerned about the state of the world. I could write off anyone who disagreed with me as being unsaved. I could stop trying to be moral in my marriage. I could start using contraception. I could stop worrying about the scourge of abortion. I could stop worrying about sin. I could stop confessing my sins.

Life would be.... more comfortable.

Yet, despite the neo-gnostic's best efforts, Christianity cannot exist without the Cross. Unless one believes that when Jesus told us to pick up our crosses and follow him he was talking to first century Jews only, one cannot buy Scofield's anti-Christian vision.

This commentary is one of the sources of a great deal of error regarding scripture interpretation. It is useful to keep in print however as a blueprint for understanding fundamentalist theology, for such theology does not arise from the scriptures alone, but largely from the pens of two men: Darby and Scofield.