The Orthodox Study Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter Epistemes
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

Epistemes

Guest
I’m going to be dead honest: I don’t know too much about Eastern Orthodoxy and where Eastern Orthodoxy departs on theological, Christological, and ecclesiological grounds from the Catholic and Protestant Churches. Regardless, I am interested in purchasing the (hopefully) soon-to-be released Orthodox Study Bible:

lxx.org/

I would love to own this Bible for personal reasons, but also for ecumenical reasons, as well, as I continue to learn about the faith traditions within Christianity.

Here’s the thing: Most descriptions of this Bible state that it will include “Orthodox commentary.” Excuse me for sounding so deft, but what would that exactly consist of? What would Orthodox commentary possibly suggest that a Catholic commentary wouldn’t?
 
Epistemes said:
Here’s the thing: Most descriptions of this Bible state that it will include “Orthodox commentary.” Excuse me for sounding so deft, but what would that exactly consist of? What would Orthodox commentary possibly suggest that a Catholic commentary wouldn’t?
Click to expand...
I do not have this Bible yet, but my guess is that commentary on Matthew 16:18 would be different. It probably would not include anything about the Papacy.
 
lak611 said:
I do not have this Bible yet, but my guess is that commentary on Matthew 16:18 would be different. It probably would not include anything about the Papacy.
Click to expand...
Yes - because it seems that most of the doctrinal differences between East and West are extra-biblical.

Am I right in saying that?
 
Epistemes said:
I’m going to be dead honest: I don’t know too much about Eastern Orthodoxy and where Eastern Orthodoxy departs on theological, Christological, and ecclesiological grounds from the Catholic and Protestant Churches. Regardless, I am interested in purchasing the (hopefully) soon-to-be released Orthodox Study Bible:

lxx.org/

I would love to own this Bible for personal reasons, but also for ecumenical reasons, as well, as I continue to learn about the faith traditions within Christianity.

Here’s the thing: Most descriptions of this Bible state that it will include “Orthodox commentary.” Excuse me for sounding so deft, but what would that exactly consist of? What would Orthodox commentary possibly suggest that a Catholic commentary wouldn’t?
Click to expand...
I actually own this Bible. I picked up a copy “on my trip back to Rome.” 😉
If you want to be affirmed in your Eastern Orthodoxy, great. If you want to know your Roman Catholic faith and be able to defend it, I would suggest the Ignatius Study Bible.

While the Orthodox Study Bible has great notes from Eastern Orthodox writers, it won’t even attempt to address those particulars of our faith, because they aren’t what defines Eastern Orthodoxy. But you will find Eastern Orthodox apologetics that are anti-Catholic in the Orthodox Study Bible.

Two differences that come to mind as I type are that the EO do not accept the primacy of the Pope, and they do not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.
 
graceandglory said:
I actually own this Bible. I picked up a copy “on my trip back to Rome.” 😉
If you want to be affirmed in your Eastern Orthodoxy, great. If you want to know your Roman Catholic faith and be able to defend it, I would suggest the Ignatius Study Bible.

While the Orthodox Study Bible has great notes from Eastern Orthodox writers, it won’t even attempt to address those particulars of our faith, because they aren’t what defines Eastern Orthodoxy. But you will find Eastern Orthodox apologetics that are anti-Catholic in the Orthodox Study Bible.

Two differences that come to mind as I type are that the EO do not accept the primacy of the Pope, and they do not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.
Click to expand...
Thanks for this!

I’ll be honest: I’m not a fan of the Ignatius Study Bible because I don’t particularly care for Scott Hahn’s brand of biblicism. I won’t explain further than that.

However, since you suggested the Ignatius Study Bible (ISB) rather than the Orthodox Study Bible (OSB), would you say that each study Bible’s style and function is essentially the same?

I have the Jewish Study Bible already, and I find its articles to be very scholarly and its footnotes to be very helpful in explaining traditional Jewish modes of thought. While I don’t find it apologetic (or damaging to my Christian faith), there are instances when the scholars insist on non-Christian interpretations of Scripture (particularly The Suffering Servant of Isaiah and “young woman/virgin” also in Isaiah). Is the OSB similar to this, would you say?

Based on your review, it sounds like the articles are more scholarly-focused and less concerned with dogmatics - but when it does concern itself with dogma it is evidently anti-Catholic. Is it anti-Catholic, or just obviously pro-Orthodox? I think there is a major distinction between the two.
 
Also, is there anybody out there who could give me their evaluation of the NKJV translation (which the OSB) apparently uses?

Is it readable? Is it accurate? Is it worth it??
 
Epistemes said:
Thanks for this!

I’ll be honest: I’m not a fan of the Ignatius Study Bible because I don’t particularly care for Scott Hahn’s brand of biblicism. I won’t explain further than that.

However, since you suggested the Ignatius Study Bible (ISB) rather than the Orthodox Study Bible (OSB), would you say that each study Bible’s style and function is essentially the same?

I have the Jewish Study Bible already, and I find its articles to be very scholarly and its footnotes to be very helpful in explaining traditional Jewish modes of thought. While I don’t find it apologetic (or damaging to my Christian faith), there are instances when the scholars insist on non-Christian interpretations of Scripture (particularly The Suffering Servant of Isaiah and “young woman/virgin” also in Isaiah). Is the OSB similar to this, would you say?

Based on your review, it sounds like the articles are more scholarly-focused and less concerned with dogmatics - but when it does concern itself with dogma it is evidently anti-Catholic. Is it anti-Catholic, or just obviously pro-Orthodox? I think there is a major distinction between the two.
Click to expand...
Is this the brand new OSB? because there is a new one just coming out - and as far as I know hasn’t been released.Amazon is taking pre orders. So I think I would for the new one to come out before criticizing Mr. E.- I love my Tanakh ! I see so many insights into the OT that are invaluable in understanding the NT.When the new version of the OB comes out I’m getting it! Maybe for Valentine’s Day!😃
 
juliamajor said:
Is this the brand new OSB? because there is a new one just coming out - and as far as I know hasn’t been released.Amazon is taking pre orders. So I think I would for the new one to come out before criticizing Mr. E.- I love my Tanakh ! I see so many insights into the OT that are invaluable in understanding the NT.When the new version of the OB comes out I’m getting it! Maybe for Valentine’s Day!😃
Click to expand...
Yes, I’m referring to the new OSB which amazon.com is taking pre-orders for. Unless I hear something definitive against purchasing it, my pre-order remains!

I’m still curious about the NKJV translation.
 
Epistemes said:
Yes, I’m referring to the new OSB which amazon.com is taking pre-orders for. Unless I hear something definitive against purchasing it, my pre-order remains!

I’m still curious about the NKJV translation.
Click to expand...
I’ve got several Parallel bibles- actually the NKJV is pretty godd- I’m an RSV person myself. But the Flow of the language in NKJV is elegant. People thought if they removed the 16th C English the whole darn thing would fall apart! Silly really. It still retains it’s poetic"style" in NKJV . I’m dying to get a Knox translation but- Yipes it’s expensive…I do a lot of my"biblical studies shopping" at garage sales and Library sales and discards. I built a nice little Bible library while being cheap(or thrifty!)👍
 
Epistemes said:
Thanks for this!

I’ll be honest: I’m not a fan of the Ignatius Study Bible because I don’t particularly care for Scott Hahn’s brand of biblicism. I won’t explain further than that.

However, since you suggested the Ignatius Study Bible (ISB) rather than the Orthodox Study Bible (OSB), would you say that each study Bible’s style and function is essentially the same?

I have the Jewish Study Bible already, and I find its articles to be very scholarly and its footnotes to be very helpful in explaining traditional Jewish modes of thought. While I don’t find it apologetic (or damaging to my Christian faith), there are instances when the scholars insist on non-Christian interpretations of Scripture (particularly The Suffering Servant of Isaiah and “young woman/virgin” also in Isaiah). Is the OSB similar to this, would you say?

Based on your review, it sounds like the articles are more scholarly-focused and less concerned with dogmatics - but when it does concern itself with dogma it is evidently anti-Catholic. Is it anti-Catholic, or just obviously pro-Orthodox? I think there is a major distinction between the two.
Click to expand...
what about the haydock bible which is the Dewey Rheims Bible with Haydock commentary. The Haydock commentary

Haydock commentary on web at
**haydock1859.tripod.com/ **
 
Michael_G said:
what about the haydock bible which is the Dewey Rheims Bible with Haydock commentary. The Haydock commentary

Haydock commentary on web at
haydock1859.tripod.com/
Click to expand...
I had a Haydock Bible. I even had the newer one-volume hardback which cost me approx. $100. What happened to it? I gave it to Goodwill.

Far too cumbersome to use: the font was small and smudgy, its manner of referencing the Fathers and other commentators confusing, and the volume itself was just excessively large.

The online commentary will serve me well, tho. Thanks!
 
The Orthodox Study Bible can be an excellent tool for Catholics, too. Because we share the Fathers much of the patristic-based commentary in this Bible is solid.

I will say this- it is much to be preferred over the New American Bible, which is too devoted to skeptical scholarship and flatly contradicts Catholic teaching in places. I find that I have to ignore more commentary notes in reading the NAB than I do the OSB.

I use the Orthodox Study Bible sometimes, and the only big disagreement is over Matthew 16.18, since the Orthodox do not believe in Papal Primacy.

But as a Byzantine Catholic, much of the spirituality represented in the Orthodox Study Bible is compatible with mine.

I indeed look forward to seeing the complete Ignatius Study Bible appear in a single volume. I am already a fan of the Revised Standard Version, Second Catholic Edition.
 
I was given the New Testament Orthodox Study Bible as a gift and I like it quite a bit.

The NKJV is not my favorite translation; I do like the footnotes quite a bit. They really bring out the liturgical aspects of the NT that I would not have picked up on myself. I have not found anything in it that offends my Catholic faith, and I echo the earlier sentiment that it is a MUCH better purchase than the New American.

Overall, I would give it a high rating.

PS. I also have an Ignatius pocket NT and I prefer the translation but it has no footnotes… I am quite intriqued by the earlier Scott Hahn reference. I know who he is but am not familiar with his works.
 
Like Graceandglory & others, I own and have been reading the Orthodox Study Bible for some time, so I’ll share some comments about it and another translation of the O.T. Septuagint that I’ve formulated already:

The Orthodox Study Bible (O.S.B.) is the long-awaited completion of a project to provide the full text of Holy Scripture (the entire canon of the Old Testament, with all of its deuterocanonical writings, as well as the New Testament), translated from the Greek texts that are normative for the Orthodox world, to meet the liturgical, devotional, and study needs of Eastern Orthodox laymen and clergy, yet it is also a landmark publication in Christian scholarship of more general application. The “Orthodox Study Bible” (O.S.B.) is a marvellous choice for Catholic and Orthodox believers who are attached to the phraseology of Anglicanism’s Authorised “King James” Version Bible tradition, for whom the O.S.B. is a good and wise choice. The O.S.B. includes the deuterocanon of the Old Testament (O.T.) as well, of course, as the other writings of the O.T., and it uses the N.K.J.V. in the New Testament (N.T.) part. The editors of the O.T. amended the N.K.J.V. to conform to the Greek Septuagint version’s renderings. With the O.S.B.'s study notes, a Roman Catholic or Eastern (Uniate) Catholic reader, concerning doctrinal and exegetical matters, only has to ignore the annotation on perhaps one single passsage, St. Matthew 16:18 (which Catholics interpret to defend the role and alleged infallibility of the Papacy, the so-called “Petrine Office”), so Catholics and Eastern Orthodox alike can pretty much agree on everything else in the commentary of the notes.

The “Orthodox Study Bible” is quite different from other study or otherwise annotated Bibles, and in the most marvellous faith-affirming ways, integrating as it does Orthodox-Catholic tradition into the study of Holy Writ. The textual base of the translation is a welcome choice, too, the Septuagint (LXX) Greek O.T. and Byzantine Greek N.T., the latter entirely free of the serious flaws of the textual basis of Protestant and more or less recent Roman Catholic translations which are based too uncritically upon the late Hebrew Masoretic O.T. and the vilely corrupt “Critical Texts” (U.B.S., Nestle-Aland, and worse) of the Greek N.T. Refreshingly, the N.T. of the New King James Version (N.K.J.V.), to which the editors wisely resorted for a modern English usage translation, is based on that already mentioned Byzantine Text (also called “Textus Receptus”), so it is refreshingly free of the faults of so many other late 19th and 20th century translations from Greek “minority text” manuscript sources.

The ample study notes of the O.S.B. for the most part are taken from, or based upon, the writings of the great Fathers of the Church (“Patristic” writings) and of other early Christian theologians and saintly figures of post-Patristic times. These notes deal with only few of the subjects to which other study/annotated Bibles devote much space, but the notes are also free (hooray!) of the speculations on chiliasm (so irksomely prominent in Fundamentalist and Neo-Evangelical sectarian study Bibles), of misleading text critical notes (common to alike too many Protestant and Catholic study Bibles), or notes of the “higher critical” sort which so toxically and misleadingly deny the Bible’s reliability factually and historically, and/or its faithful transmission across the ages. Conservative, “confessional”, and believing Christians (of whichever labelled type) of the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, Protestant, and sectarian traditions alike will find the O.S.B.'s annotations faith-affirming and full of the deep Christian wisdom of the ages.

Whereas the O.S.B. incorporates its own freshly completed new translation of the Greek Septuagint O.T., known as the “St. Athanasius Academy Septuagint” English Version (S.A.A.S.), of which the translation project director is the estimable Jack Norman Sparks (who also is the principal editor of the O.S.B. as a whole), another recent translation into current English of the Greek LXX O.T. also appeared on the market only one year before the publication of the O.S.B. I am referring to “A New English Translation of the Septuagint and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included under That Title” (N.E.T.S)., edited by two Protestant scholars, Allen Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright (Oxford University Press, 2007; ISBN 978-0-19-528975-6). As the O.S.B. had taken the N.K.J.V.'s O.T. as the point of departure (in editing it to conform to the LXX Greek O.T.), the N.E.T.S. chose to rework the New Revised Standard Version (N.R.S.V.) of the O.T. to conform it to the Greek LXX O.T.

The results of the editors’ work for the N.E.T.S. English translation of the Greek LXX O.T. are remarkably fine. The N.E.T.S. translation is crisply clear and freer of the slight ambiguities here and there that one finds even in in the S.A.A.S. English rendition of the LXX O.T. The traces of “feminist-speak” (or “inclusive language”) and of other flaws in the N.R.S.V.'s at times too trendy translation seem, from what I can tell in having used it fairly intensively along with the O.S.B.'s S.A.A.S., to have disappeared entirely, so meticulously thorough has been the work of Pietersma and Wright in reworking and conforming the N.R.S.V.'s O.T. to the Greek LXX.

For this lay reader, there only a few real obstacles to, or reservations about, using the N.E.T.S. version of the O.T. confidently for daily reading. One is the slighter impediment of the N.E.T.S.’ pedantic use of exactly transliterated forms of personal and place names, which differ (sometimes markedly) from the better-known forms of name in other English Bibles, which the O.S.B. wisely chose to retain as being more reader-friendly. Another and more serious failing is the presence of some passages where translation choices of dubious doctrinal orthodoxy occur, in part due, very likely, to Pietersma and Wright acceeding to pressures from Jewish scholars among their collaborators to downplay the Christian implications of certain readings which occur in the LXX text of the O.T. Apart from this sort of thing, the translation occasionally does resort elsewhere to peculiar or awkward wording which is less pellucidly clear, or that is more doubtfully pertinent, than what characterises most of the N.E.T.S.’ admirably elegant prose. Also, of course, for the Christian reader, having the O.T. in a separate volume from the rest of the Bible, the N.T., makes it more convenient to use the O.S.B. for both of the Testaments as a principal choice for a practical edition of the Bible for constant use; in any case, the S.A.A.S. translation of the O.T. in the O.S.B. is free of the risky and hazardous readings which here and there occur in the otherwise so admirable N.E.T.S.

So, fellow Catholics, fear not: use the O.S.B.!
 
Copland 3,

Hey, guy, thanks much for providing that link to the Papoutsis version (in progress) of the Septuagint Old Testament! It seems like a good and faithful rendering, :thumbsup:and I am pleased that Papoutsis has chosen to use the Tudor Period pronouns: the “t” ones (thou, thee, thy, thine) for second person singular pronouns and the “y” ones (ye, you, your) for the second person plural prounouns, a distinction that much enhances precision in translating in a way that fully contemporary usage simply cannot convey. However, I do wish that Papoutsis would use the corresponding Tudor verb forms more consistently. Something like “thou has” (rather than the correct “thou hast”) really, in reading aloud, grates on the ear or, unspoken, on the “mind’s ear”! I hope that he does something about that.

Anyway, I have bookmarked this online Septuagint O.T. English translation which your learned friend is undertaking. May he have the best of good fortune in completing it and finding a publisher for it in book form!

Jerry Parker
 
Jerry_Parker said:
Copland 3,

Hey, guy, thanks much for providing that link to the Papoutsis version (in progress) of the Septuagint Old Testament! It seems like a good and faithful rendering, :thumbsup:and I am pleased that Papoutsis has chosen to use the Tudor Period pronouns: the “t” ones (thou, thee, thy, thine) for second person singular pronouns and the “y” ones (ye, you, your) for the second person plural prounouns, a distinction that much enhances precision in translating in a way that fully contemporary usage simply cannot convey. However, I do wish that Papoutsis would use the corresponding Tudor verb forms more consistently. Something like “thou has” (rather than the correct “thou hast”) really, in reading aloud, grates on the ear or, unspoken, on the “mind’s ear”! I hope that he does something about that.

Anyway, I have bookmarked this online Septuagint O.T. English translation which your learned friend is undertaking. May he have the best of good fortune in completing it and finding a publisher for it in book form!

Jerry Parker
Click to expand...
Peter is one of the finest, very humble and generous!
 
LikeDismas said:
I was given the New Testament Orthodox Study Bible as a gift and I like it quite a bit.

The NKJV is not my favorite translation; I do like the footnotes quite a bit. They really bring out the liturgical aspects of the NT that I would not have picked up on myself. I have not found anything in it that offends my Catholic faith, and I echo the earlier sentiment that it is a MUCH better purchase than the New American.

Overall, I would give it a high rating.

PS. I also have an Ignatius pocket NT and I prefer the translation but it has no footnotes… I am quite intriqued by the earlier Scott Hahn reference. I know who he is but am not familiar with his works.
Click to expand...
I agree 100%. The Eastern Orthodox have produced a far more consistent Patristic Liturgic Study Bible than anything that I have found within the Catholic Church.

In our modern day, we Catholics can bearly call ourselves Apostolic. Since Vatican II we seem to be somewhere between the Ancient Church and the Anglican Church. We’re moved!
 
Jerry_Parker said:
So, fellow Catholics, fear not: use the O.S.B.!
Click to expand...
I respectfully disagree. Transl. itself is awesome but there’s this air of anti-Catholicism within its pages.

Some quotes from the intro:
“But after nearly 300 years, the bishop of Rome slowly began to assume to himself a role of superiority over the others, ultimately claiming to be the only true successor to Peter.”

The Pope is the Supreme Pontiff so he IS the only succuessor to Peter!!!

“This assumption of papal power became one major factor in rending the Roman Church, and all those it could gather with it, from the historic Orthodox Church.”

not true: THEY broke away from US, not the other way around…

“The Pope, of course, had no legitimate right to do this.”
(They’re referring to the excommunication of Constantinople’s Patriarch in 1054AD)

Then who does have this right, if anyone? Excommunication wasn’t used as a political means of controlling all of Christendom, as they claim, but was used to preserve the oneness of the Church.

“He had intended no break with Rome.”
(They’re referring to Luther in 1517AD)

Really? This doesn’t make sense: Luther vehemently opposed papal authority, so how can there be Catholicism w/out the Pope?

“The ecclesiastical monopoly to which it had grown accustomed was greatly diminished, and massive division replaced its artificial unity.”
(They’re referring to the effects of the Reformation)

The “ecclesiastical monopoly” they refer to is called the Sacred Deposit of the Faith, with a Pope to clarify + confirm the underlining doctrine + dogmas - so how can this ever be “greatly diminished”??

“Thus, while retaining, … portions of foundational Christianity, neither Protestantism nor Catholicism can lay historic claim to be the true New Testament Church.”

By stating this they deny our Lord’s words at the very end of Matthew, Mt.28:20, His assurance that the Catholic Church is what He intended to leave behind, so how is Catholicism not the true historic Church?

“In dividing from the Orthodox Christianity, Rome forfeited its place in the Church of the New Testament.”

For crying out loud: We didn’t kick them out - they separated from us!!!

For my fellow Catholics considering this bible, by all means, read and love it if you find it in your heart to do so, but I take the Catholic Church’s word over the Protestant or Orthodox’s anyday…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top