What Bible translations are used in Eastern Catholic Churches?

[lak611]

What Bible translations are used in Eastern Catholic Churches? Do any of the Eastern Catholic Churches use Bibles that include Psalm 151, 3 & 4 Maccabees, 1 & 2 Esdras, and the Prayer of Manasseh?

 

[bpbasilphx]

What Bible translations are used in Eastern Catholic Churches? Do any of the Eastern Catholic Churches use Bibles that include Psalm 151, 3 & 4 Maccabees, 1 & 2 Esdras, and the Prayer of Manasseh?

Speaking of the Byzantine use:

There are Gospel and Epistle lectionaries that are based on the NAB used by Ukrainian and Ruthenian jurisdictions.

Some use Orthodox editions based on the RSV.

There is (it may be out of print now) an Epistle and Gospel book, translated by Joseph Raya, that is wide spread among the Melkites and some Orthodox parishes.

Keep in mind that these books, especially the Epistle Lectionaries, have the various Prokeimena, Alleluia, Communion, and the like.

Psalm 151 forms part of the Psalterion (Liturgical Psalter), though it is never read in services.

The Prayer of Manasseh is used in Great Compline. Sometimes this is read by the Reader, sometimes by the Priest with the People kneeling at the words, “And now I bend the knees of my heart…”

As for as the rest, the LXX remains the official OT of the Byzantine tradition. And the Orthodox Study Bible, based on the LXX, is soon to be released.

 

[lak611]

Speaking of the Byzantine use:

There are Gospel and Epistle lectionaries that are based on the NAB used by Ukrainian and Ruthenian jurisdictions.

Some use Orthodox editions based on the RSV.

There is (it may be out of print now) an Epistle and Gospel book, translated by Joseph Raya, that is wide spread among the Melkites and some Orthodox parishes.

Keep in mind that these books, especially the Epistle Lectionaries, have the various Prokeimena, Alleluia, Communion, and the like.

Psalm 151 forms part of the Psalterion (Liturgical Psalter), though it is never read in services.

The Prayer of Manasseh is used in Great Compline. Sometimes this is read by the Reader, sometimes by the Priest with the People kneeling at the words, “And now I bend the knees of my heart…”

As for as the rest, the LXX remains the official OT of the Byzantine tradition. And the Orthodox Study Bible, based on the LXX, is soon to be released.

Thanks! That was very helpful.

 

[chrisb]

Grace and Peace,

Why so long for an English LXX?

 

[bpbasilphx]

<<Why so long for an English LXX?>>

It’s not a question of why so long for an English LXX.

There were actually two translations made earlier:

1. The Septuagint Bible by Charles Thompson, secretary of the Continental Congress. However, it follows the short canon.
2. The Septuagint generally called the Bagster LXX, now published by Zonervan.

The LXX translation in the OSB is the first English version made by Orthodox. However, you will be happy to know, as you can see from the sample pages, that very little attention is paid to Biblical criticism.

 

[chrisb]

<<Why so long for an English LXX?>>

It’s not a question of why so long for an English LXX.

There were actually two translations made earlier:

1. The Septuagint Bible by Charles Thompson, secretary of the Continental Congress. However, it follows the short canon.
2. The Septuagint generally called the Bagster LXX, now published by Zonervan.

The LXX translation in the OSB is the first English version made by Orthodox. However, you will be happy to know, as you can see from the sample pages, that very little attention is paid to Biblical criticism.

Well, I am ‘seriously’ not a fan of Historical/Critical. I attended two Bible-Study Sessions at my RC Parish and the entire time our Parish Priest spent all our time trying to convince us of the Historical Theory with regard to the OT.

I ‘welcome’ any Bible which steers clear of conjecture…

Peace.

 

[lak611]

bpbasilphx:

. The Septuagint generally called the Bagster LXX, now published by Zonervan.

Does this translation include the entire LXX?

 

[bpbasilphx]

Does this translation include the entire LXX?

Yes, it does!

 

[lak611]

Does this translation include the entire LXX?

Yes, it does!

Thank you.

 

[amitandrews]

In the Syro malabar church to which I belong to, as per traditions and as per norms should be using the Syriac translated ‘Peshittha’ version in the vernacular language Malayalam. But most of the priests are so pro-Latin that they use a version which is used even in the Latin churches published by the POC. The problem with te POC is that the usage of certain words in it are Latinised. eg: The syro malabar and Chaldean church call jesus Christ as Isho M’shiha whereas the POC one terms it as Yeshu Christu.

The church needs to make the original version more freely available not only for priests but also to the people.

The readers are free to get back to me [E-mail address removed by moderator. Please respond through this thread or through the forum’s private message system which allows users to receive e-mails or PMs.]

 

[malphono]

IThe syro malabar and Chaldean church call jesus Christ as Isho M’shiha whereas the POC one terms it as Yeshu Christu.

Yes, you are correct about the Name in Syriac. At the same time, (at least as I understand the situation), it appears that the Syro-Malabar Church has, in post-conciliar years, unfortunately purged itself of the Syriac language and become “100% Syriac free,” meaning that it’s now all vernacular (Malayalam), so the rendering of the Name is only a matter of transliteration. If Syriac were still used at all, I’d agree with the premise presented, but since it appears to be otherwise, I have to ask: what’s the difference?

 

[Little_Boy_Lost]

But both of those words are not latin in origin.

Christos is Greek.

M’shiha is Messiah in Syriac I presume.

Both are correct.

The Syriac probably uses Messiah as Hebrew and Aramaic are closer to Syriac than Greek, and the Assyrian tradition developing outside the direct influence of the Byzantine Empire/Tradition.

 

[RuthByzCat3]

The Ruthenian Epistle books use the 1976 NAB.

 

[chrisb]

Grace and Peace,

Has anyone compared the recent Ignatius Catholic Study Bible New Testament with that of the Orthodox Study Bible New Testament?

 

[RuthByzCat3]

No, but I do very much like the OSB. My version of the NAB is bulky and for some reason I find it somewhat awkward.

 

[Little_Boy_Lost]

I’ve heard lots of praise on various threads about the 2nd edition OSB. My pastor even recommended it. However, I’ve also read negative comments like “Biblical Criticism”. What does that mean?

I remember a year ago I looked at a copy in Borders and I was not very impressed by the footnotes on I flipped through. Someone on a blog called it a first attempt, but the study aspect is far from honed and could be fleshed out.

I also found this rather hard review of the OSB.

Is it worth the money for the septuagint? I will take a look at the bible again. I don’t want to get a “Catholic Study Bible” cause I know it will be riddled with “buzzwords” that will probably just annoy me.

 

[Pilgrim1701]

I’ve heard lots of praise on various threads about the 2nd edition OSB. My pastor even recommended it. However, I’ve also read negative comments like “Biblical Criticism”. What does that mean?

I remember a year ago I looked at a copy in Borders and I was not very impressed by the footnotes on I flipped through. Someone on a blog called it a first attempt, but the study aspect is far from honed and could be fleshed out.

I also found this rather hard review of the OSB.

Is it worth the money for the septuagint? I will take a look at the bible again. I don’t want to get a “Catholic Study Bible” cause I know it will be riddled with “buzzwords” that will probably just annoy me.

Must agree, this caught my attention, too, as I am developing an interest in Orthodoxy. But, the rewview makes clear, this is the NKJV text, and the notes seem to be somewhat Protestantised, in that, according to the Orthodox reviewer, they seem to be written by someone form outside the Orthodox tradition trying to instruct non-Orthodox what Orthodox believe and failing on many counts.

There are other notes in which a non-Orthodox viewpoint comes across. Examples are:

a) The note on Acts 3:1 refers to “Advent,” which is a term and period which does not exist in Orthodoxy. In the Western liturgical churces (Roman Catholic, Anglican, and Lutheran) “Advent” is the name given to the four Sundays preceding Christmas. Orthodoxy does not observe these Sundays, but it does have a six-week fast preceding the feast of the Nativity of Our Lord.

b) Mark 2:20. This note defends fasting, but from a rather Protestant viewpoint. It is written to persuade Protestant readers that fasting is acceptable for a Christian, not to encourage Orthodox to discover the spiritual benefits of fasting.

c) The note on “fasting” in the glossary (p. 798) mis-defines the Apostles Fast, incorrectly saying that it is the two weeks before June 29. This fast is actually of variable length, starting on the Monday after All Saints Sunday and continuing until the Feast of Sts. Peter and Paul. The fact that the author of the notes does not know how long the fast lasts can only raise doubts about the extent to which the Faith is being lived.

Finally, there are notes which are simply unacceptable to any true Orthodox Christian, since they are omissions or distortions of vital Orthodox teachings.

 

[Pilgrim1701]

a) Matthew 14:14-2 1. In discussing the feeding of the five thousand, the editors somewhat grudgingly say that the feeding of the four thousand (reported in Matthew 15:32-39) “…is PROBABLY not a duplicate report of the first miracle.” Thereby, the editors are challenging the authenticity and reliability of the Gospels, since the same Gospel reports the two miracles separately and since the Lord Himself refers to both of them as separate events (Matthew 16:9-10). To raise even a question about whether these are separate events is to call into question the Lord’s veracity and the reliability of the Gospels—surely not an Orthodox attitude toward either.

b) Mark 9:38-40. The note says, “Sectarianism and triumphalism (the attitude that one creed is superior to all others) are forbidden, for God’s working transcends our limited perceptions. One is either for or against (v.40) Christ, but it is not always ours to know who is on which side.” Does this mean that the creed of the First and Second Ecumenical Councils (the Symbol of Faith) is no better than any other creed (e.g., the Lutherans’ Augsburg Confession)? Any Orthodox Christian who does not think that the Church’s creed is superior to all others places himself outside the Church. Furthermore, while we may not always know where a person’s heart is, we can see that those who willfully promulgate false creeds are working against our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. The attitude in this note is simply foreign to any healthy Orthodox Christian.

c) Mark 10:30. The Lord promises that those who give up family and possessions will receive them back a hundredfold, but the note calls this into question, saying that this is “not an absolute promise: countless saints and martyrs were not so rewarded.” Here the authors betray their carnal viewpoint. The Fathers apply this passage to the whole Christian community, saying that those who give up earthly family and possessions receive new fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, homes and lands in the CHURCH, but not in the carnal sense of getting more personal possessions. It is bad enough that the authors’ viewpoint is carnal, their error is compounded by the fact that they openly disagree with the Lord and question the accuracy of His promise.

d) Acts 13:3. The note supports multiple ordination. This practice has been forbidden in the Orthodox Church for many centuries, so there is no reason whatsoever to mention it, unless it is to justify the extreme irregularity of performing such ordinations when the so-called “Evangelical Orthodox” were received into the Antiochian Church.

e) I Timothy 2:12. By citing Romans 16:1 to suggest that women have been ordained as deacons and by stating that “women are not ordained to the offices of bishop and presbyter in the Orthodox Church,” the note implies that women can be ordained deacons. This is not the case. The order of deaconesses is not currently in use in the Church, and in any case the Church does not treat the order of deaconesses as equivalent to that of deacons, since the former do not perform the deacon’s liturgical functions.

f) II Timothy 1:9. The note says, “Our salvation and CALLING are based on His GRACE and love, not on anything we have done to merit God’s favor.” The Orthodox viewpoint is that our salvation does in fact depend on our response to God’s grace and how we use it in our lives. We are co-workers with God in our salvation, as St. Paul says (I Cor. 3:9; II Cor. 6: 1; Phil. 2:12-13). Even our calling as Christians is based on our synergy in responding to God’s grace in our lives, since we are all sustained by His grace in every breath we take. Those who respond to this grace receive a calling to participate more fully in it, a calling which is based on their earlier responses.

g) The note on I Peter 3:18 glosses over the Lord’s descent into Hades. You may be able to find this doctrine in the note if you know it is supposed to be there, but it certainly is not presented in a clear and unambiguous way. And yet, this is the focus of the primary icons of the feast of the Resurrection, so how can it be skimmed over with no more than a hint in what claims to be an “Orthodox Bible?”

These comments are representative of the non-Orthodox viewpoint which permeates this Study Bible and which makes it unsuited for use by Orthodox Christians. It is truly sad to see so much effort, time, and expense put into producing this Bible with such meager results in the end. It would, however, be far safer for Orthodox Christians to avoid such inaccurate and misleading aids as are provided in this Bible, especially since several more reliable “Orthodox Study” Bible commentaries are available in English for Orthodox readers (e.g. Johanna Manley’s “The Bible and the Holy Fathers” her “Grace for Grace: The Psalter and the Holy Fathers” (which has the added advantage of using the Orthodox Psalter as its basic text, rather than the Protestant one); and the ongoing translation of Blessed Theophylact’s commentaries on the Gospels.

Hardly an Orthodox endorsement.