I’ve ordered a copy of the anticipated and also highly criticized (by at least a few) Orthodox Study Bible. I’m looking forward to receiving it. I’ve had my moments of questioning the whole “study Bible” phenomenon, but I’ve also wondered if some of the critiques aren’t a bit overboard. Critiques (by bloggers I highly respect and read regularly) have ranged from dissecting even the blurbs on the dustcover to verse numbering in OT texts. Much of the technical aspect is far over my head. I’m wondering how the Bible will appear to a normal Orthodox Christian who has no academic training.
The new Bible appears to be endorsed, if not officially, by the Greek Archdiocese and the Antiochian Archdiocese, judging by their websites.
I’d love to hear some responses by people on the editorial board of this Bible to the harsh criticism it has received from some quarters. There are no doubt some problems with the Bible (as there are with any book, translation of texts, etc.). But I suspect some of the conclusions drawn by critics are a bit far reaching. One of the critiques I have heard several times goes something like this: “Did the editors not know that people could study the Bible before this book came out?” And, “Have they not heard of learning Scripture through the liturgy?” I think I’m safe in assuming that Fr. Gilquist and the others involved in this study would firmly agree that Christians could “study” Scripture long before this volume was released, and also that knowing Scripture through the life of the Church and her Liturgy is absolutely necessary. These types of critiques make me wonder if we’re not being a bit too anxious to tear something apart, even if it is a bit deficient. Not all of us are academics; most of us are simply trying to read Scripture and be Orthodox Christians in the Church. We left Protestantism because we saw its deficiencies and desired to be in the One Church, which we came to believe was the Orthodox Church. I know from experience that it is disappointing to have longtime Orthodox speak to you as if you are “still Protestant.” I think, at the very least, critiques of something trying to do a good thing should show as much charity as possible.
But, I’ll have to wait on getting my copy before I can actually read it and make a judgment for myself. We have a large group of people here who ordered a case, so perhaps I can get some of their opinions (some of them are still Protestants who are inquiring into Orthodoxy)
I’d be also interested in what your take on the OSB is. i’ve been thinking of buying a new study bible. i like using my brother’s NRSV “new interpreters’ bible”, which is pretty solid in spite of the lame title.
but then i’d also wonder how the orthodox study bible might differ from others.
I’ve been thinking about buying it at well, and honestly, been ignoring the critiques. I find many people to be much to nit-picky and like you said, “bit overboard”, so when I see them I just move on along. However, part of me is quite happy with the ASV I’ve been using my entire adult life.
You might be interested to know that Fr. Peter Gillquist has been doing some lectures about the OSB. He was here locally talking about it and (of course) selling copies. Okay, so the selling part has me a bit concerned, but I heard his talk was enlightening. You should try to see if he’s coming to your area.
When I first received my copy, a little over a month ago, my knee-jerk reaction was disappointment that they omitted the concordance and the center-column cross-references.
Now that I’ve had time to use the Bible, I’ve grown to love it. I’ve read through most of the psalms, and I enjoy the LXX interpretation. It’s nice to have the entire Protestant Old Testament, plus the extras that I had heretofore never experienced. In short, I’m very happy with it, and I think I’m going to pick up another copy for my wife’s birthday.
I absolutely agree that the some of the critiques that have appeared in the last few weeks have been completely unbalanced in their wholesale dismissal of this first edition of the entire OSB. I’m also guilty of criticizing my beloved Pittsburgh Steelers on Monday morning when they make a few mistakes. But I need to remind myself that I’ve never played in the NFL and keep that in mind the next time I wish to give my opinion. Apparently, the internet makes everyone an expert on everything.
A few of the criticisms are legitimate. Most unfortunate was the editorializing in keeping (mostly) the Masoretic text for Psalm 22 (23). Ironically, this was the first thing I checked when I received my new OSB. I was disapointed and a bit confused. As a priest and teacher, this lessens the value of the text in making a connection between the scriptures and prayer (in this case, the Psalms prayed before communion). I feel certain that this decision was well intentioned. However, it was also deeply uninformed, and puts into question what else might have been editorialized in the translation. If it’s a translation from the LXX, then it needs to be faithful to whatever version of the LXX they chose to use.
However, the more apoplectic comments about the concept of study bibles being not indigineously Orthodox, not liking the icons, not having a new NT translation, the flow of the translation, the cover, etc, are bordering on the ridiculous. We could use that same argument about the very idea of binding all the books of the bible into one book, as well as versifiction itself! (Although I do agree that the editors should not have created yet a new versification system, for example, in Daniel. This will cause confusion – bad idea.) I even read a comment that criticized that fact that the OSB quoted many Fathers instead of just one! Huh? The reasons given for many of these issues were not at all compelling and seemed to smack of, as you said, nit-picking. And FWIW, the notes are vastly improved in the NT.
All in all, this first edition of the entire OSB is a good start. In fact, given Orthodox disunity in this country (and others) it’s nothing short of a miracle. It will have tremendous value in the lives of hundreds of thousands of English-speaking Orthodox Christians. (Yes, hundreds of thousands. One commentator questioned if there even was an outpouring of desire for an OSB with OT. Apparently he had not heard that sales of the NT OSB had reached almost 500,000 copies.) Given the deplorable lack of knowledge (and interest) of the scriptures among many Orthodox faithful, we should rejoice that this project was ever begun at all, and be thankful to God that a group of people were willing to take up the daunting task. I’m sure that future editions will correct some of the more blatant errors and questionable editoral choices, and features will be added (such as cross references for the LXX). This is my hope and prayer. This new OSB is the foundation of a good work which will improve over time.
Glad Fr. Thomas weighed in. I enjoy listening to the Path.
I was perturbed also to run across someone saying AFR was PROTESTANT! ……….
Lord Have MERCY.
I’m sure I’m to blame in much of the perceptions that the criticism is solely negative. I’ve followed the project for over ten years, and it seems that some problems it ran into just a few years ago led to some massive changes that were unexpected, and very likely led to the product being less than it originally was planned to be. That said, I have many years of Hebrew and Greek and Latin under my belt, and a deep familiarity with the Bible in those forms, and am constantly reading current scholarly works on the Septuagint and its relationship to the Hebrew. It’s been an abiding fascination of mine for 22 years now, since I first started my Hebrew classes and was surprised to find the Septuagint being a major presence in the critical apparatus of my Hebrew Bible. I have grown up over all that time with the Hebrew Bible and the Septuagint, and along the way have converted to Orthodoxy. In and among all that, I guess what I want to say is that I would like people to understand that my pickiness toward the OSB is rooted not just in deep familiarity with the Septuagint, but in as deep a disappointment, which feels much more like a betrayal, with the very poor representation of the Septuagint that the OSB comprises. Yes, it is even in this form good, but the real thing is so much more, and the OSB could’ve been and should’ve been so much better.
As Fr Soroka suggests, maybe another edition will come along and many of these issues will be addressed. It would really have to be another book, the way this one is. And I wonder if anyone’s going to actually go to the trouble of that. Revised editions are expensive. And when the “revision” amounts to what I’d estimate about 1/3 of the Old Testament, that’s pretty significant and not likely to gain any winners on the publisher’s side. At this point, a separate project probably has a better bet of getting something done with a different publisher, one which won’t require an inappropriate connection with a translation the copyright to which it owns, as is the case of the OSB, the NKJV and Thomas Nelson Publishers.
Kevin,
Your review of the OSB was ONE of several that I read which were negative, most of which came from bloggers — as I said — I highly respect and read regularly. Your erudition in the area of biblical languages and the history of texts is also what I referred to as being “far above me”! I do not know enough about the history of the Septuagint to even notice the problems that you notice; I certainly understand your frustration. Any professional who sees the poor work of another “professional” is bound to be disappointed, even if the customers or patients served don’t know the difference (and in some cases may not be any the worse for choosing one professional over the other).
My mild frustration with some negative reviews were centered around other reviews which were not so technical, just seemingly nitpicky. I just don’t think it’s fair to start labelling the editors as “too Protestant” and speak of them by saying things like, “Have they never been to Liturgy?” (a question actually asked by a commenter on one site). This stuff is over the top.
Your stuff is just over my head!
By the way, at your advice, I ordered the NETS version of the Septuagint. I confess, there are large sections, even complete books, of the Septuagint that I have never read. I’ve only been Orthodox for a short time, and growing up I never had access to it (never even heard about it in my “church” until I got to the university).
Thanks for stopping by. Wow, a priest and a scholar as my last two commenters…. never before have I had such notable traffic! Haha.
warmly,
kevin
Thanks very much for your kind words, Kevin, O man finely named!
I think you’ll enjoy the NETS. I’ll caution you, though, that it’s not a translation designed for easy reading, but to reflect the peculiarities of the Septuagint very closely. It’s an academic translation, so also, the introductions are extremely technical at times. In the translation, occasionally there will be sentences that don’t make sense, and some with some tortured grammar. This is an accurate reflection of the Greek, which in such cases either reflects an underlying difficulty in the Hebrew or an awkward attempt to get around such. There are also (as Fr John Whiteford brought up on my blog and elsewhere) some unfortunate translations (like “divine wind” for “Spirit of God” in Genesis 1.2) in NETS. These things are related to scholarly fads (in this case related to the same foolish translation “a wind from God” in the NRSV — blech) and are fortunately rare in the NETS, but are also easily corrected.
The more I think of it, the more I’m considering going through to compile a list of corrections which would render the NETS text an easier read for Orthodox faithful. That would be a useful thing, I think.
Kevin,
I received both my NETS and my OSB today. My first impression with just the aesthetics of the OSB are that (1) the cover (hard) is very nice, very simple, and (2) the layout inside is not. The text disappears down into the crease of the spine; I HATE THAT in a book. The Catholic Ignatius RSV was the same way, and I never bought one for the same reason.
That’s all though; I’ll have to look at it more to have any further reflections. My copy had an errata page slipped inside the front cover. My first thought was, “How did some of these errors slip past editing?” Like the incorrect ordering of the OT minor prophets. Or the “slop” error in the Gospels.
I want to spend some time reading through various psalms and narratives, along with their attendant study notes. Then I’ll post some of my reflections.
The NETS looks good! Though I confess I was looking forward to taking off that mediocre dust cover to examine the cloth binding…. only to find out that was not a dust cover. Oh well.
Kevin,
While no one questions your credentials, I question the usefulness of mostly acerbic comments, especially from someone of your academic background and interests, as well as an Orthodox Christian. Wouldn’t it be better to contribute to the improvement of the OSB rather than sit on the sidelines and castigate the work from afar over which others labored? You could do so much to help the cause instead of detract from it. It reminds me of the like-comments from Fr Ephrem in the UK on the first edition which, in the end, many find to be a sad commentary on talent which can be used to build up the church in this partciular area of biblical translation (which is admittedly sorely lacking) but is instead used to brutally deconstruct a necessary work in the Church done by others, who may, in fact, be less skilled, but in the end, are much more diligent.
I’m quite sure that the editors of the current OSB could use your help, insight and scholarship. While a work such as the OSB is an effort of many individuals and is not a reflection of any one particular individual, your contribution could be the necessary element which lends credibility to the work which you seem to find so lacking. I’d be happy to give you contact information if you wish to pursue it.
In Christ,
Fr Tom Soroka
Father Soroka, in short, I offered my help in 2002. You may write to me privately for the whole story.
Now, I simply do not have time to pursue more than the book project I’m now involved in, and several more after that. I am, so to speak, booked for the forseeable future. I assure you that I am indeed “much more diligent” than you might think from my critiques!
Kevin, keep me posted on your thoughts!
Dear Father Soroka:
The LXX is the Bible of the Orthodox Church as well as the Patriarchal Text of the NT. from 1993 to 2008 with the number of people helping and translating this project the mistakes and mistranslations of Genesis 3, Genesis 4 with Cain and Abel, Psalm 22(23) and 1st Kingdons and the whole-sale omission of 4th Macabees which is an important Book in Orthodox Christianity, especially Greek Orthodox Christianity as well as alot of the behind the scene Politiking led to the inferior product that we have in the OSB.
The notes, IMHO, are not truly Orthodox, especially in the New Testament were our priest had to constantly reference the tradition of the Church to correct the blatant mistakes in the notes. The most obvious is in the geneology of Jesus present in The Gospel According to St. Luke. The notes completely miss the traditional interpretation that the Panayia (Theotokos) is genetically related to the house of David which directlt Contradicts Romans 1:3 that states that Jesus Christ is physically (i.e. genetically) decendent from the House of David. His Royal Claims comes through his adoptive Father Joseph to avoid the blodd curse placed on the royal line by Almighty God, but Christ is genetically linked to the House of David through the Virgin Mary through Nathan, and avoids the curse as Nathan was not in the royal line of succession. There are clear Patristic references to this such as the Prolouge of Orchid. This is NEVER presented in the OSB notes for St. Luke. This is nit-picking? I respectfully disagree.
I can go on and on both with the inferiority of the transation and the notes, but why should I have discovered this and their editorial boards have missed it? I know I can miss something as I am just one man, but an entire editorial board? Let’s not make excuses for a poor product. Furthermore, many of the cristisims that were made and continue to be made have been directly made to the OSB board, but were obviously ignored, as well as the Greek Orthodox Archdioces criticisms of what the OSB was doing.
There is alot more going on than what meets the eye and I urge people to contact the GOA members listed in the OSB, e-mail them privately and let them tell you what happend.
Peter A. Papoutsis
Correction:
I meant that the OSB notes for St. Luke contradict Romans 1:3 about Christ’s lineage. Sorry for that.
Peter
Peter,
Thank you for your comments. I’d like to ask you a few more questions, so check back if you care to and I’ll try to post them later this evening.
in Christ,
Kevin
Peter,
Can you explain a bit more about how you feel the notes on St. Luke’s Gospel contradict Romans 1:3? I confess that I’m not quite sure I understand the contradiction. Perhaps this is a subject that I’ve never looked into adequately.
As for the OSB board “ignoring” advice, I tend to want to give people the benefit of the doubt as much as is possible. Not following advice does not mean that it was “ignored.” It could mean that they simply ended up disagreeing, or even that they were so overwhelmed with trying to finish it up that they could not get to everything. The latter is unfortunate, but not worthy of the castigation some are directing their way.
And, as far as contacting people to hear stories about “what happened,” I don’t see the point in that. We are all better served by prayer, service, forbearance, and worship than exerting any more time searching about for various perspectives on who got ignored or who said what. I don’t mean to sound demeaning in that, either; I just am becoming more and more turned off by some of the bickering and inordinately hurt feelings and academic pouting going on around this. I am more than willing to admit that the OSB is not perfect; perhaps it even has some serious flaws. But for God’s sake, perhaps the Prayer of St. Ephraim ought to be prayed and meant: “Help me to see my own faults and not to judge my brother.”
All that said, I would greatly appreciate your further input here in helping me understand the problem with St Luke’s Gospel and Romans 1:3. I also looked at your website, and the Bible you are working on there looks VERY appealing! I will return to visit and look at it more; I very well may end up ordering it.
Dear Kevin:
First thank you for your response. I agree with you on several points, especially about the bickering, but I must take issue with a few.
First, many know (at least I hope they do) that I am translating the LXX and Patriarchal Text of the New Testament in what I have called THE HOLY ORTHODOX BIBLE. One of the things I have done throughout my translation work is to constantly post my work for viewing and review by as many people as possible. The input has been greatly welcomes, especially the negative input.
Because I have engaged in a policy of openess in my translation I have had LXX scholars, Orthodox Christians and Orthodox Monastics all comment on my work from roughly 1997 to the present. I have listened and corrected where appropriate. Where I have not I have explained thoughout the years. In the end, I have published the HOB in various stages and times, which is fustrating to some, but appriciated by others as the text that is finally produced was well worth the wait. Currently I am in the process of translating the major prophets with Esaias finished and Barouch stated next (I needed a smaller book to translate after Esaias). Finally, I am just one man, just one and I have to say the HOB translating that has come out so far has found favor and acceptance from both mainstream Orthodox and traditional Orthodox. Many have wanted me to translate faster, but I did not because I wanted to avoid what happend in the Orthodox Study Bible.
Second, I was greatly anticipating the Orthodox Study Bible because if its publication truly produced an authoritative English Orthodox translation of the LXX and PTNT then I would have stopped and hung up my “Spurs” so to speak. I would have thrown my full support behind it and would have pushed it as I am currently pushing the NETS translation but even more so.
I would have done this because American Orthodoxy could have truly united over the OSB if the OSB lived up to its promises and expectations. American Orthodoxy could have rallied around the OSB as one of many things that could have united us accross jurisdictional lines. Regretably, this did not occur.
Further, the disapproval of key members of one of the biggest Orthodox Archdioces is significant behind the production of an English translation of the Orthodox Church’s Bible. The Church is beyond conservative. This is the main reason a translation was never done before because of its conservatisim towards the original Greek. Any translation to be fully accepted would have needed the full support and endorsement of the Hierarchy. This never occurred, and its sad that it did not occur.
Fr. Eugen J. Pentiuc had serious concerns about the OSB translation, especially in the major and minor prophets. Now what those concerns are I cannot say for sure. When I talked to Fr. Frank Maragos of the GOA and American representative of the Ecumenical Patriarch all I could find out is that he and others in the GOA, including Fr. Pentiuc were “not happy” with the translation and commentatry. When pressed for specifics none were given, which was to be expected. Fr. Pentiuc has not, as of yet, uttered a word for or against the OSB and I did e-mail him to get his thoughts even though his was an associate editor on the OSB, especially for the commentaries and footnotes.
Father Theodore (Ted) Stylianopoulos also has not commented, but is concern was expressed to me. Again, no specifics from either for or against the OSB and they are editors on the project. Their silence on this matter speaks louder then most words.
Compare Professor Metzger who did defend the Revised Standard Version’s more questionable translations. One may have disagreed with the late Professor Metzger, but at least you knew where he stood. The same cannot be said for the OSB editorial board, at least not yet.
The criticisms levels at the OSB are legitimate critisims that could have been easily rectified. In fact, in talking with the Chancellor with the Denver Archdioces under Metropolitan Isaiah, he did express to me that the OSB people ran into a problem with the NKJV copywrite. That the changes they wanted to make they were not permitted to make due to Thomas Nelson not allowing them to make whole-sale changes otherwise, under the law, it would cease to be the NKJV text and be something different defeating Nelson’s copywrite. Thus, the OSB Board needed to find a way around this.
Thus, from what I have been able to see the OSB text probably pushed the limits of what they were allowed to alter under the NKJV copywrite, but left the remainder. I do not know for sure, although that’s what it looks like to me.
I will comment on Romans 1:3 in my next post.
In regards to the Commentary Notes under The Gospel According to St. Luke in connection with Romans 1:3. First, the traditional Orthodox understanding of the geneology of Jesus Christ in St. Luke is that this is Jesus Christ’s Geneology through the Panayia and NOT through St. Joseph. In fact, the panayia’s Father, Heli is clealy mentioned in the text. Many assume that this is St. Josephs father, but this is contradicted in Matthew’s Geneology.
What many do not understand is that Heli is another rendering of Joachim, which is the traditional rendering of the Panayia’s father. Further, the geneology starts with St. Joseph because all geneologies in jewish culture at Jesus’ time were partiarchal not matriarchal, even when showing the mother’s lineage and connection to her children.
Jesus Christ was part of the royal house of David, as required by the messianic prophecies, as well as within the royal line of succession from King David, but the direct Royal bloodline was cursed by God as we read in the Old Testament. Jesus is NEVER tainded with the curse because he is NOT in the direct bloodline as St. Matthew’s geneology tells us as he is St. Joseph’s adoptive son. However, what about Romans Ch 1 verse 3?
Romans 1:3 reads: “Concering his son Jesus Christ, our Lord, which was made of the SEED of David according to the FLESH…” the Greek states: “YENOMEVOU EK SPERMATOS DAUID KATA SARKA…” That’s NOT adoption! Thats a physical, genetic blood connection with the house of David. And you get that physical connection with the Virgin Mary’s geneology, YES ITS THE VIRGIN MARY”S GENEOLOGY, in the Gospel according to St. Luke. Christ further avoids the stain of the blood curse ( the Cursed Branch of Jehoiakim and Jeconiah) because although related to the house of David genetically his connection is through Nathan NOT Solomon. Solomom is the royal line that has the curse NOT Nathan who is not in the royal line of succession. Thus Our Lord and Savior, through the Panayia, by Nathan is liked by blood to the House of David while avoiding the blood curse placed on it by Almighty God.
This has always been the traditional understanding of Jesus Christ’s geneology in the Gospel according to St. luke. The Prolouge from Orchid adheres to this view of St. Luke’s genealogy, the name of the panayia’s father, Heli, agrees with the name given to Our Lady’s father in a tradition founded upon the report of the Protoevangelium of James, an apocryphal Gospel which dates from the end of the second century. According to this document the parents of Mary are Joachim and Anna. Now, the name Joachim is only a variation of Heli or Eliachim, substituting one Divine name (Yahweh) for the other (Eli, Elohim). The tradition as to the parents of Mary, found in the Gospel of James, is reproduced by St. John Damascene, St. Gregory of Nyssa, and St. Germanus of Constantinople to name a few.
The notes to the OSB in both St. Matthews account and St. Luke’s account make no mention of this, especially given the weight and authority of the Prolouge from Orchid in the Orthodox Church, as well as the following liturgical reading on the Feast of the Annunciation:
“The Holy Virgin Mary was born of aged parents, Joachim and Anna. Her father was of the lineage of David, and her mother of the lineage of Aaron. Thus, she was of royal birth by her father, and of priestly birth by her mother. In this, she foreshadowed Him Who would be born of her as King and High Priest. Her parents were quite old and had no children. Because of this they were ashamed before men and humble before God. In their humility they prayed to God with tears, to bring them joy in their old age by giving them a child, as He had once given joy to the aged Abraham and his wife Sarah by giving them Isaac. The Almighty and All-seeing God rewarded them with a joy that surpassed all their expectations and all their most beautiful dreams. For He gave them not just a daughter, but the Mother of God. He illumined them not only with temporal joy, but with eternal joy as well. God gave them just one daughter, and she would later give them just one grandson-but what a daughter and what a Grandson! Mary, Full of grace, Blessed among women, the Temple of the Holy Spirit, the Altar of the Living God, the Table of the Heavenly Bread, the Ark of God’s Holiness, the Tree of the Sweetest Fruit, the Glory of the race of man, the Praise of womanhood, the Fount of virginity and purity-this was the daughter given by God to Joachim and Anna. She was born in Nazareth, and at the age of three, was taken to the Temple in Jerusalem. In her young womanhood she returned again to Nazareth, and shortly thereafter heard the Annunciation of the Holy Archangel Gabriel concerning the birth of the Son of God, the Savior of the world, from her most-pure virgin body. ”
This is the Orthodox Faith, not that presented in the notes of the OSB for the Geneology of St. Luke and no connection is made to explain this within the conext of the Fest of the Annunciation.
Finally, if you think it would be to bulky to explain this in a study bible note check the Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition, 1st Edition, Ignatius Bible. Look at the note that is a sentence or two long. What took me several paragraphs the Catholics were able to encapsulate in one to two sentences.
Note, this is just one of several notes that do not properly express the mind and patristic tradition of the Orthodox Church.
God Bless
Peter A. Papoutsis
Peter,
Thank you for your thoughtful and careful response. I will look at this more as I am able; your explanation makes good sense.
If you have time, I would like to request your thoughts privately on a few questions I have. Please email me at klburt73@gmail.com if this sounds agreeable to you. Thank you!
warmly,
Kevin