Comments on: A layman’s thoughts on the Orthodox Study Bible

By: Kevin L.

Kevin L. — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 10:32:57 +0000

I appreciate this review. I’ll have to get me an OSB when we’re back in the states.

By: Theron Mathis

Theron Mathis — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 12:47:45 +0000

Kevin,

Thanks for the positive review.

I’ll be in BG in the next couple weeks.

Theron

By: kevinburt

kevinburt — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 04:15:54 +0000

Trevor,

Thanks for those corrections. Yes, I did mean Theophylact. I made the appropriate changes.

And thanks for the link you provided!

warmly,
Kevin

By: Maximus Daniel

Maximus Daniel — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 01:31:13 +0000

Well balanced review Kevin. I am also a sucker for a “beautiful” Bible, I just think it deserves it.

By: Kevin P. Edgecomb

Kevin P. Edgecomb — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 22:29:49 +0000

Thanks for sharing your thoughtful review, Kevin!

I’m hoping that as more people manage to obtain copies we’ll see more and more reviews appear.

By: Trevor

Trevor — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 11:08:07 +0000

If you haven’t already come across something similar, you might want to check out a discussion with Fr. Peter Gillquist when he visited our parish shortly after the release of the OSB. It does give some insight into the decisions they had to make.

Also, as a side note, you misspelled the URL to http://www.orthodoxincense.com/, and when you say “Blessed Theodoret’s commentaries on the Gospels,” I think you probably mean Bl. Theophylact.

By: James Miller

James Miller — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 03:31:28 +0000

Coming from an evangelical background I went in and out of seeing “study bibles” as a good thing. I think the OSB is good however there is some caution that must be taken . Study notes are often taken by laymen to be “the” interpretation. The Scofield study Bible was one of the first Bibles with notes and the interpretations went a long way to solidify dispensational theology in America as the prominent evangelical theology. It is still a text book study bible required for Bible students in evangelical schools (I had 4 of them )
It also enforced personal interpretation with its “empowerment”.
Given this is the first Orthodox study Bible needs to be accurate, if history repeats itself the ideas in this book will have an effect on the shape of the Orthodox lay theology and thus theology. (more over the actual way theology is practiced)
I think the authors have done well in keeping the ideas orthodox and staying aways from many issues that could cause division.
I will agree there is a hint of evangelical style and I think that (with the cute wording alluded to) is causing some issues.
Over all it is a good bible but the Orthodox community can never let this Bible be a crutch to a proper church life.

By: kevinburt

kevinburt — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 03:26:54 +0000

Aha! Thanks, Fr. Tom! I had missed that. What’s odd is that they list this LXX ordering on the Errata sheet. I guess it was just to alert people that this was different from the “Protestant Old Testament Canon.” Thanks for this tip!

By: Fr Thomas Soroka

Fr Thomas Soroka — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 03:02:54 +0000

Note p. xvii of the introductory article by Bishop Basil, “Overvew of the Books of the Bible.”

By: kevinburt

kevinburt — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 02:44:04 +0000

One thing I’m stumped about is the apparent wrong ordering in the minor prophets. The OSB has this order: Amos – Micah – Joel – Obadiah – Jonah; the traditional ordering with which I grew up was: Joel – Amos – Obadiah – Jonah – Micah.

I figured it was just a glitch in the table of contents, but when I flipped over to the prophets, I found that they were actually misplaced in the text, according to the erroneous (?) table of contents.

Is this just a “mess up”? It seems like a rather large error that is almost stunning to imagine how it could be missed before final publication, or how it even got that way to begin with! Is there some alternate ordering that might have led to this?