The New Orthodox Study Bible

[SamDash]

I have plenty of Bibles, so I’m not particularly interested in getting this one.

I just wanted to note that the footnotes could hardly be worse than those in the allegedly-Catholic New American Bible.

Just be wary.

 

[angelheart]

Hello!

I have received mine a few days ago. I think Amazon takes too long to ship things, so I ordered mine through another website. I didn’t get a chance to take a look at it though…

God bless!
Stefania

 

[lak611]

Hello!

I have received mine a few days ago. I think Amazon takes too long to ship things, so I ordered mine through another website. I didn’t get a chance to take a look at it though…

God bless!
Stefania

Do you have any idea if there are any “brick and mortar” bookstores that have the Bible? I would like to actually look at it before I buy it.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Hola

I haven’t heard of this at all.

Descendants of Peter? That would be interesting in the West, as Rome barely acknowledges that he was married.

Actually we know he did. I Corinthians 9:5. And St. Clement tells us St. Peter was exhorting his wife during her martyrdom. And according to tradition, their daughter Petronilla died a martyr in Rome.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

here’s a link about to a thread @ it, the new one I was referring to:

byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=281108#Post281108

there is someone telling about it.

(the O.P.)
oh, I guess the N.T. is based off the NKJV, opps… still, sounds like it might be good stuff, what do you all think?

I know a number of the translators were not crazy about the NKJV. There was a proposal to go with in the OT, but they balked at that (at least some did). The issue is that the press owns the copyright.

The translation of the OT from the LXX is markedly different, for instance in the story of the angel of the Lord trying to kill Moses because his son wasn’t circumcized, the ending of Job, etc. I’ve been told there are some areas where it went with Rahlfs dependence on the Masoretic text, but I haven’t been able to confirm that. The translations I understand were compared with the NKJV and harmonized with it to an extend (for instance, Sons of Israel is rendered Children of Israel throughout), because of the copyright, and to produce a consistent translation. Unlike the original LXX, no one is claiming this translation is inspired.

The text produced is different enough that it is copy righted, as it stands the only translation of the LXX into English.

 

[bpbasilphx]

The text produced is different enough that it is copy righted, as it stands the only translation of the LXX into English.

**Actually, so far as I can tell, this is the third one, but it’s the first English LXX done by Orthodox.

Two earlier versions are the Brenton version (sometimes called Bagster after the original publisher; it’s been reprinted by Zondervan of all people) and one with the short canon, called The Septuagint Bible, translated by Charles Thompson, secretary of the Continental Congress at the time of the Revolution.**

 

[Ignatius]

Orthodox theology is perfectly acceptable and valid for Catholics of any type.

I doubt that there is any mention of the Papacy in the OSB, positively or negatively. So it should not be an issue.

Michael

Actually it does give the point of view of the Orthodox with regard to the Papacy and Peterine primacy. However, ignoring that, it is perfectly orthodox (in the Catholic sense). I was dissapointed after I received mine to discover that the New Testament translation is just the New King James version. I had expected an authentic Orthodox translation from the Greek. The commentary however, with the exceptions I have mentioned, is excellent. As others have mentioned, it is filled with very beautiful Sacred Iconography. In my opinion, It is worth buying for that alone.

 

[East_and_West]

Why not?

It is in the theological/spiritual tradition of Byzantine rite Catholics, or do you disagree?

Byzantine Catholics must accept the Catholic view of the Pope, annulments, the sacremtns etc. Views that are in opposition to the EO churches teachings. THUS, all Catholics should be careful when reading this EO study bible.

 

[Subrosa]

I have plenty of Bibles, so I’m not particularly interested in getting this one.

I just wanted to note that the footnotes could hardly be worse than those in the allegedly-Catholic New American Bible.

Just be wary.

I’m curious. I’ve been using the NAB for years and have yet to find an objectionable sidenote, even though I have heard it from several people.

Maybe you could point out one or two that you think qualify?

Sub

 

[justme]

Actually it does give the point of view of the Orthodox with regard to the Papacy and Peterine primacy. However, ignoring that, it is perfectly orthodox (in the Catholic sense).

Comments like this strike me as being very funny and very sad at the same time.

You say that it is “perfectly orthodox” yet in the sentence before you state how it is not “perfectly orthodox” due to its distorted view of the Papacy and Peterine primacy.

Either it is or it isn’t, there really is no middle road. If it isn’t then it is not acceptable for a Catholic as not all Catholics are 100% solid in their knowledge.

As for some pointing out the weaknesses in some of the Catholic Study Bibles, I have advocated for none of them. The issue I have here is that this version is not a Catholic one and I question its usage by Catholics. Bringing up other versions is just a Red Herring.

 

[mgy100]

Actually it does give the point of view of the Orthodox with regard to the Papacy and Peterine primacy. However, ignoring that, it is perfectly orthodox (in the Catholic sense). .

Could you please;
give us a bibliography
the exact quote with references (page numbers). Perhaps a full quote as well. That way we could see what you mean exactly.

 

[ronyodish]

Hi everyone,

I have copies of several versions of the Scriptures, Catholic ones and others. I do have a copy of the Orthodox Study Bible (New Testament and Psalms), and this version is laid out nicely, with beautiful icons, a concordance, and other features. Though, I don’t have the newer version which includes the OT.

In looking at the commentary on the passage of Matt. 16:13-20, the first thing that stood out for me with which I disagreed was the commentary on verse 18, specifically this statement:

“Rock refers not to Peter himself but to the confession of his faith”

My disagreement with this commentary is that it sets up an opposition, a “false dichotomy” between Peter himself and his confession of faith. On the other hand, the Catholic perspective takes a both/and approach, rather than an either/or approach on this issue. Rock is not either Peter himself or his confession of faith, rather, it is both Peter himself and his confession of faith. There is no separation.

The commentary on the next verse (19), starts out by saying:

“Keys of the kingdom clearly implies a special authority given to Peter himself, but never separated from his confession of faith.”

Well, that’s good, but they just separated Peter himself from his confession of faith earlier in verse 18, and now they want to avoid this separation. The harmony that is supposed to exist between these two verses is weakened in this Bible commentary.

God bless,

Rony

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Hi everyone,

I have copies of several versions of the Scriptures, Catholic ones and others. I do have a copy of the Orthodox Study Bible (New Testament and Psalms), and this version is laid out nicely, with beautiful icons, a concordance, and other features. Though, I don’t have the newer version which includes the OT.

In looking at the commentary on the passage of Matt. 16:13-20, the first thing that stood out for me with which I disagreed was the commentary on verse 18, specifically this statement:

“Rock refers not to Peter himself but to the confession of his faith”

My disagreement with this commentary is that it sets up an opposition, a “false dichotomy” between Peter himself and his confession of faith. On the other hand, the Catholic perspective takes a both/and approach, rather than an either/or approach on this issue. Rock is not either Peter himself or his confession of faith, rather, it is both Peter himself and his confession of faith. There is no separation.

The commentary on the next verse (19), starts out by saying:

“Keys of the kingdom clearly implies a special authority given to Peter himself, but never separated from his confession of faith.”

Well, that’s good, but they just separated Peter himself from his confession of faith earlier in verse 18, and now they want to avoid this separation. The harmony that is supposed to exist between these two verses is weakened in this Bible commentary.

God bless,

Rony

That’s because the Vatican understanding is weakened by the Fathers. New Advant (“Office of the Keys”) has to even admit that the Office of the Keys is not mentioned in connection to any papal supremacy among the Fathers.

 

[ronyodish]

That’s because the Vatican understanding is weakened by the Fathers. New Advant (“Office of the Keys”) has to even admit that the Office of the Keys is not mentioned in connection to any papal supremacy among the Fathers.

I just looked up New Advent on the entry “Power of the Keys”, and the statement you are referring to is worded like this:

---

It is comparatively seldom that the Fathers, when speaking of the power of the keys, make any reference to the supremacy of St. Peter.​

The article is saying that it is seldom, not that there is no mention.

I’m reading right now a book called Saints and Sinners, A History of the Popes by Eamon Duffy for one of my classes, and it’s funny cause I just today came across one of those seldom references:

---

Gregory was accustomed to send to select bishops and royalty, as marks of great favour, tiny reliquaries made in the form of a key, and containing a few filings from the chains of St. Peter. These keys, which some of Gregory’s successors also bestowed, were a potent symbol of the Pope’s power to bind and loose. The imaginative power of the symbol was revealed at the Synod of Whitby in 664. King Oswiu, having heard the arguments for and against the Roman and Irish dating of Easter, ruled, with a smile, in favour of the Roman practice, because of the keys of the kingdom had been given to St. Peter, not to Irish leaders like St. Columba of Iona. So, he declared, ‘since he is the door keeper, I will not contradict him; but I intend to obey his commandments in everything to the best of my ability, otherwise when I come to the gates of the kingdom, there may be no one to open them, because he who holds the keys has turned his back on me’.​

God bless,

Rony

 

[Khalid]

The best translation of the LXX into English is one fron the 1850s by Sir Lancelot Charles Lee Brenton based on the Codex Vaticanus (and it also includes the entire Greek). The distant second best is the New English Translation of the Septuagint from a year or so ago, but it’s written with an eye to reconciling the LXX and MT by people who clearly think that the corrupt Masoretic text is superior: it is a “revised NRSV”, and although all of the inclusive language has been removed, it still goes with some odd renderings ones based on a con-fusion of the MT and LXX.

The OT of the OSB is so terrible it doesn’t even deserve the name “LXX translation”, which its not - in most places that aren’t terribly obvious (Susanna, Three Jews) the OSB NKJV OT actually hews completely to the NKJV with no alteration at all. A perfect example is the numbering of, and content of, the Psalms, which are taken verbatim from the NKJV with the Jew numbering, and neither the numbering nor the text is changed to even make it compatible with any known LXX, let alone to prefer the LXX over the MT. Most of Esther is another example. It doesn’t even have the full canon of the LXX!

The Sir Lancelot CL Brenton translation is the only worthwhile one in English, but it uses a very stilted, pseudo-Jacobean grammar and style to mimic the King James, which was likely used as boilerplate for it. The NETS is not as good, because the authors subscribe to the primacy of the Hebrew text, but it’s still decent, and more readable (based on the NRSV).

Even where the OSB OT does hew to the LXX, the renderings are odd, nearly unintelligible, and very non-flowing/anti-poetic, as the “literalness” has been taken one step too close to “Young’s Literal Translation”, and there are verses that start off LXX and end MT and vice-verse: over all, an extraordinarily inconsistent work.

 

[Khalid]

Links to the LCL Septuagint and NETS:

LCL Brenton: amazon.com/Septuagint-Apocrypha-Greek-English/dp/0913573442/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1310202811&sr=1-1

NETS: amazon.com/New-English-Translation-Septuagint/dp/0195289757/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1310202811&sr=1-2

 

[Zhenia]

Mine came today. I ordered the bonded leather cover.

Has anyone here ordered it? What do you think of it so far?

I have had a copy for a few months. For some reason parts of the footnotes don’t sit well with me. They sound like liberals in the OC got in there and had a say in the footnotes.

 

[Khalid]

Negatives:

I think it’s ****.

*The notes are neither scholarly nor profound. The notes ignore difficult parts of the text, and paraphrase everything else.

*For “Ancient Christianity”, there are surely a lot of ancient Fathers that aren’t ever quoted, and plenty of modern-day Orthodox “saints” (e.g. Palamas and Symeon Theologian) that are: and when the fathers are “quoted”, it doesn’t tell you from what work, and they’re never quoted in profundity: just paraphrasing the text.

*The study articles are poorly done, with little relevance to faith or apologetics: they also are jejune.

*It’s written by Evangelical Bibliolater converts to Eastern Orthodoxy. EOs are widely known for a great lack of scriptural knowledge, but, reading this book, it comes across as an Evangelical study Bible with the word “Orthodox Church” thrown in occasionally.

*It feels like it’s written by outsiders looking in.

*The notes say they’re written on a high-school graduate level; I say they’re written on a remedial middle-school level.

*Jesus is never referred to by any other name, and Mary is never referred to as the Mother of God.

*Nowhere are there any mentions whatsoever of the communion of saints. The list of prayers in the back specifically omits this to make it more to Evangelical Bibliolater tastes.

*The paper quality is bad. The type-setting and font is bad. The layout is bad. The binding is bad: it’s glued, and has a horribly small gutter.

*The OT text is neither translated poetically, nor accurately, nor legibly. The translation used is poor. The LXX is neither an LXX nor a Masoretic text, but it’s more of a Masoretic text.

The NT is a completely unaltered, horrible, inaccurate New King James NT, a favourite of the non-KJV-only branch (even the 21stKJV or the NKJV are viewed as “corrupt” to the KJV-only crowd) of Fundamentalist Bibliolater Protestantism. Enough said.
*
Positives

*The icons are nice.

Essentially, Orthodox theology for the last thousand years has consisted of three major things: 1) trying to demonstrate independence and lack of influence by Mahometan rule, 2) cursing the Filioque, and 3) cursing and attacking the Papacy. There are also smaller points based on divorce, the essence-energies distinction, the Assumption of Mary, and the false prayer of self-hypnosis called hesychasm.

Catholics have produced more theology and philosophy of a profound and interesting nature in the past 12 months than Orthodox have produced in the last 50 years (as I mentioned above, Orthodox theology is limited to the dissolute “hesychasm” and ad hominems against Catholicism and endless praise for Michael Cerularious). Catholics and Protestants combined have produced more theology and philosophy since the year 2000 than the Orthodox have since the Reformation, and likely more than the Orthodox have since the sack of Constantinople in 1453.

The Orthodox position on philosophy is this: the 4th Century Church Fathers used a certain language to describe God, and learned of God in a certain way. Western “heretics” like Thomas Aquinas and Augustine came along, and developed new terms borrowed from Platonic and Aristotleian philosophy to describe God, and used the rational mind (may I remind you that God gave humans a rational mind) to describe God in a way that was foreign to the Early Fathers. Because it was foreign to the Early Fathers, who knew everything about God, it must be false and heretical.

He neglects to mention that the Early Fathers invented their own language for describing God, and, without any practical forbears, invented their own methods of coming to know Him: yet, any further developments in the science of theology must be heresy.

 

[JRRTFAN]

Orthodox theology is perfectly acceptable and valid for Catholics of any type.

I doubt that there is any mention of the Papacy in the OSB, positively or negatively. So it should not be an issue.

Michael

No offense, but it absolutely is not acceptable and valid. The position on the papacy and divorce and remarriage among the flaws. If it was perfectly acceptable there would not still be a division.

 

[Hesychios]

No offense, but it absolutely is not acceptable and valid. The position on the papacy and divorce and remarriage among the flaws. If it was perfectly acceptable there would not still be a division.

Are you trying to say there is no such thing as Orthodox in communion with Rome?