We need a new Orthodox Study Bible...badly
Vložit
- čas přidán 6. 08. 2024
- See R. Grant Jones's Review and critique here: • The Orthodox Study Bib...
Also, see THIS article on the Septuagint in the Orthodox Church by the Rev. Stephen de Young: blogs.ancientfaith.com/wholec....
There is a project underway called “The First Bible of the Church.” It’s not a “study,” Bible. It is rather, a completely fresh translation using the Septuagint for the OT. Many portions of it are already done and published through St Ignatius Orthodox Press. They even have a Lectionary Bible. A full Bible is still a couple years out from publication though.
If they make a Bible I’m buying it
Can you give a link or something to read about it? I cant find it
Thanks for giving a shout out to R. Grant Jones. He is both a scholar and a man with a gentle spirit.
NewRome Press stated quite a while back that they were going to make a Bible using the EOB New Testament and a Fresh translation of the Brenton Septuagint. I have yet to see any work actually done on that great endeavor but boy oh boy would I acquire one pronto if/when it does come to fruition. God bless
The weird thing is that the Orthodox Study Bible will often make almost arbitrary changes to the NKJV's Old Testament in a supposed effort to make it align slightly closer to the LXX. For instance, Genesis 1.2 retains the traditional words "without form, and void" in the NKJV, but it is altered to "invisible and unfinished" in the OSB (cf. Brenton "unsightly and unfurnished"). Such a minute change feels hardly worth the effort. But then it will leave out well-established LXX readings in places, as you noted. It's such an odd product, and I wish they had simply chosen to follow the RSV's lead by using a translation of the Masoretic Hebrew as a base text and supplementing it with the well-supported Greek readings where needed.
Here's a thought: I believe the OT volumes of the 29-volume Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (ACCS) series, which uses the RSV, generally contain footnotes for the major LXX readings. So, theoretically, if one were to create an "LXX OT" using the RSV, that would probably be a good starting point. The verse-by-verse quotations from the Fathers in those volumes would also be a decent basis for the notes in such an Orthodox RSV Bible. Add to the fact that many volumes in the Fathers of the Church (FOTC) and Ancient Christian Writers (ACW) translation series, and others, have come out since the ACCS was finished, so there is a wealth of English-translated Patristics that a new Bible could make use of, including full Patristic biblical commentaries on whole books.
I also think a lot of the work that would have to be done for an RSV-Orthodox Edition is already covered in the footnotes of the RSV. The editing process could mainly just incorporate alternative readings into the main text and put the Hebrew reading into a footnote. That said, reference to the Hebrew definitely has a place, and I don't think the RSV would need a total makeover.
Orthodox New Testament Vol 1 & 2 are the best English translations for the New Testament out right now. Give those a purchase.
I was very pleased to hear your praise for the Ignatius Press Bible which is based on the RSV-CE version. Here in the UK the Catholic Bishops' Conference has, in its wisdom, chosen the ESV-CE for the new Lectionary commencing on first Sunday of Advent (1 December 2024). Unfortunately, that too is based on the NKJB. A very strange choice given the excellence of the RSV-2CE.
I am a catechumen from the Roman church, as a former Roman Catholic I had very detailed bible studies series. When I left and was an inquire I was excited to hear about the Orthodox study Bible and ordered and and was excited for it to arrive. But sadly disappointed in the commentary so little commentary and not much info, I do use it to read and glance at the commentaries, I did finally ordered the bible and the Holy father's for orthodox and it definitely was alot better than the Orthodox study Bible but yet this isn't really a bi le although I do enjoy it and it does have more writing on different topics, but I am still looking for something about more deeper. Hope there will be another more completed bible study in the bear future
Yeah, the OSB is a mess. Sometimes it seems they change half a verse and fail to correct the other half to the LXX. The notes seem like they're aimed at new Evangelical converts, and it seems to be more corporate than ecclesiastical. My priest cannot stand it.
New Rome Press is putting together a volume with the LES and EOB, and I think Ignatius Orthodox Press is doing something similar with the LXX2012 (they've already got a lot of it out for their lectionary Bible).
Another good option, similar to the RSV, would be the WEB. It's an internet translation that follows a Byzantine Text in the NT (though the ecclesiastical text is more like the TR), but it follows the MT in the OT. It has all the books, unless you're Syriac. Using the MT isn't that great an issue given that the NT quotes from contrasting texts and even uses the Targums as Scripture. The NT seems to prefer something more like the MT in the minor prophets but the LXX overall.
I would love it if we first established a Byzantine Majority Septuagint, much like the Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine Majority New Testament.
The main form bulk would be established based on the majority witness of Byzantine Old Testament manuscripts. Then, where individual readings differ between the biblical manuscripts and the lectionaries (the Prophetologion and Menaion), priority can be given to the lectionary reading with the majority witness. (Again, this is priority of the variant readings themselves, not the overall form of the text, as lectionaries are by nature selected excerpts.) Thus, we would create a Byzantine Majority Septuagint with priority given to the text as it was received by the Church in her liturgy where the manuscript evidence differed. I find this far more preferable to settling for Rahlfs' Septuagint (as the Church of Greece has done) or waiting another hundred years for Göttingen _not_ to finish their eclectic Septuagint.
We could then use this new Byzantine Majority Septuagint as the basis for a new Old Testament translation (or, far more economical, a revision of a public domain translation). I am in favor of revising the King James Version Old Testament w/Apocrphya, updating spelling and punctuation and adding paragraphing in the process. But I'm not opposed to a thorough revision and correction of the Revised Standard Version.
Or... Do a revision of Wisdom literature from the King James Version, but a revision of the Revised Standard Version for everything else.
There only needs to be one article in a bible. It should be one sentence that reads, 'If you have any questions, ask your priest.'
Some of what you want out of a new OSB is the Ancient Faith study bible, which is based on the Ancient Christian commentary. To be honest, that's what I'd rather have. Although, I'd prefer a newer translation, such as the NRSV. I'd really like an interlinear using the Septuagent.
I'm not sure. From what I understand, the Ancient Faith study bible is pretty ideologically Protestant in its selection of passages from the Early Church fathers. Also, the CSB just doesn't work for such a commentary.
@@TheRomanOrthodox Agreed. But a new OSB ought to have study notes from the Church Fathers, primarily, and not just the newfangled stuff we are so accustomed to seeing. The popularity of the Ancient Faith Study Bible (I have one and used it frequently) shows that even Protestants are starting to get tired of the modern perspective only and desire commentary which reflects a much longer and more traditional point of view.
We need more apologetics in orthodoxy and theologians speaking on the air
Very interesting video. I never knew that about the Rsv. The only translations I used has been the Douy-Rhiems and the KJV.
What’s your thoughts on orthodox using the douy-Rhiems for home reading? Is the Rsv and KJV better because they use the Byzantine texts?
Well, the Douay-Rheims is a translation of the Latin Vulgate, which is a translation that relies on both the Septuagint and pre-Masoretic Hebrew texts in the Old Testament and an Alexandrian text-type in the New. Although the Vulgate often makes similar textual choices to modern translators, it also makes different ones, but, in general, it is a pretty good translation and the D-R is a pretty good translation of a translation. In that the Vulgate used an Alexandrian type of New Testament text, it is actually going to come pretty close to the RSV in some places, while the KJV used an early revision of the Byzantine text called the Textus Receptus, so it comes closer to the later Patriarchal text of 1904. So, there is certainly value to reading the D-R, especially if one doesn't read Latin. Two caveats: (1) The D-R is based on a particular edition of the Vulgate which was, in some places, different from older manuscripts of Jerome's work. (2) The Challoner revision largely tried to harmonize the D-R with the King James Version, and that is the version most commonly published today. My suggestion would be to choose a better, more scholarly Bible such as the RSV with expanded apocrypha or RSV-2CE, but you could do worse than the D-R. A revision of the Old Testament of the RSV to line up with the Septuagint when supported by other scholarly sources and of the New Testament in line with the official Patriarchal text would be my dream. A true Orthodox Bible (as opposed to an Orthodox Study Bible) would likely include both the Greek and English texts in parallel columns, harmonized with one another but with adequate notes to explain departures.
@@TheRomanOrthodox thank you for the in-depth explanation. I always liked the vulgate because it comes from great Saint and Doctor of the Church. All translations have some bias to it. So when translating directly from the Greek, Protestants can use bias translation to Greek words that have a wide range of meaning. While in the vulgate we get a Saintly translation of the Greek into the Latin, from an Orthodox Saint and not Protestant scholars. That’s how I always looked at it. And why I always preferred the vulgate. But my understanding of the various translations is very limited.
What’s your thoughts on the EOB New Testament translation?
@@diegobarragan4904 It is good in terms of underlying text but a very clunky translation.
@@TheRomanOrthodox there’s also a two volume New Testament set from holy apostles convent (I think schismatic monastery but I don’t know the details), it has icons within the text and has an excellent commentary from the Holy Fathers. The best I’ve seen in a bible.
So which would you suggest we buy for now?
@@snowps1 Well, there's nothing wrong with having the OSB on hand, but I suggest the RSV with separate patristic volumes.
It seems to me that a decent New Testament would be Cleenwerck's Eastern Orthodox Bible. I like that it uses the Patriarchal Text with notes of variants from other manuscripts.
As for the Old Testament, I think we should stick with the Septuagint. The Masoretic Text was put into its current form at the earliest in the 7th Century, and almost certainly is influenced by a need to minimize passages that prophesied Jesus. Perhaps if we had the Hebrew manuscripts that St. Jerome used for his translation of the Vulgate, that would be different, but since we do not, we should use the Septuagint because it was translated by Jewish scholars a century or two *before* Christ, and therefore cannot be accused of inserting prophecy post hoc. Note that even though the Russian Synodal Bible (N.B. "Synodal" because Tsar Peter had suppressed the Patriarchate in favor of "The Most Holy Synod" in imitation of the Lutherans) uses the Masoretic text, the official version of the Bible for the Russian Church is still, as I understand it, the "Elizabeth" Bible in Church Slavonic, the Old Testament of which *is* translated from the Septuagint.
Inasmuch as the EOB does away with Jacobean 2nd person singular personal pronouns and the associated verb conjugations, perhaps the Lexham English Septuagint would be a good choice. NETS is a bit clunky and Brenton's might need some updating. Of course, someone could still make another translation, perhaps using the Rahlfs critical text as the base, but that is quite a bit of extra work if the Lexham version is already acceptable.
I suppose some copyright stuff would need to be sorted out if one wants to combine the EOB and the Lexham translation into one unified codex.
Regarding commentary, it seems to me that if we want notes from the Fathers of the Church, one question we need to answer is just how big, physically, do we want this study Bible to be? For commentary itself, a lot of work has already been done by Johanna Manley in The Bible and the Holy Fathers for Orthodox and Grace for Grace: The Psalter and the Holy Fathers. Both of these compilations are already quite voluminous, so perhaps it might just be better to leave commentary, other than notes of variant Greek texts, out. Manley's work is arranged using the lectionary and the Psalter, but perhaps one could re-arrange The Bible and the Holy Fathers to track the New Testament and expand the commentary with something like "The Prophets and the Holy Fathers," the "Torah and the Holy Fathers," &c.
I tend to think we should have a balance. Certainly, the Septuagint should have a strong place, particularly when it is reflecting an earlier, unavailable Hebrew text, as should the readings of the Old Testament in the Fathers, the New Testament (which do not all reflect the Septuagint), the Dead Sea Scrolls, and so forth. The Masoretic texts have their place in all this as well, of course. The goal should be to do our best at presenting the Holy Scriptures in their original form as received by the Church.
@@TheRomanOrthodox Let me clarify: If we are to have an "official" or "authorized" version of the Bible in English, and which will be used liturgically, the translation of the Old Testament should be from the Septuagint. Frankly, for now, I would be happy if the bishops of the American jurisdictions could just settle on a common version of the Creed.
I don't disagree that for study purposes Old Testament translations from the Hebrew, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Syriac, or (even!) the Latin 😛 would be worthwhile.
The creed? What do you mean by that? The creed is the same wherever you go.
@Damascene749 The respective English translations used by the OCA, GOArch, and the Antiochenes are different from one another. The substance is the same, but the wording is a bit different - enough to trip one up if one is visiting a parish of another jurisdiction.
Well, Rocor has claim to jurisdiction to all of North America, so hopefully they all follow what rocor does.
I've been looking for a one volume orthodox commentary.
Sadly I can't find one
Have you tried Holy Bible with Holy Fathers for Orthodox?
Sad the ESV chose to update that passage back to the KJV version. I still like the ESV for being 92% the RSV but having more modern printings.
I agree. I use my ESV with Apocrypha Bible fairly frequently.
@@TheRomanOrthodox Cambridge do a nice ESV Apocrypha to complement any old decent printing of the Protestant books. haha
Genesis 25:34 is completely missing from the Orthodox Study Bible.
Bro you get a A+ in penmanship.
I, too, noticed his beautiful handwriting. It belongs to the ages. Bravo!
The EOB New Testament has excellent (i.e. scholarly) articles. The translation is nigh unreadable, but the _study notes_ - the study notes are great 👌 The OSB isn't much of a study bible. Maybe it's okay as a devotional bible 🤷♂
This is an interesting analysis, but where you failed to present an argument is why we should start over with the RSV instead of just fixing the already identified errors in the NKJV.
I am not sure that we should start over. The RSV already has the approval of Orthodox bishops, so we would simply be adding a few books to the RSV-2CE from the editions that have been published already. As far as the notes, they need an overhaul in any case.
Starting with the protestant nkjv is a bad product result.
Shoutout to the “First Bible of the Church” Project.
From what I can tell, that project has shut down due to a lack of funding.
5:37 why not tape or glue it??????
Basically, because I haven't got around to it yet.
@@TheRomanOrthodox too busy obeying the Pope I hope?
@@SecondDairyNoticer Absolutely not. I'm Orthodox.
Hey, have you checked out the FBC project approved by the Rocor
Only by reading an info sheet. There are a few worrying things, like the decision to make a "fresh" translation, the use of the Septuagint exclusively, and a willingness to embrace a "dynamic" translation model. But I will wait and see.
@@TheRomanOrthodox yeah. At least there’s attempt. But yeah your vid is great
@@KauahdhdhdThanks for dropping by and come back soon!
I thought you guys had everything sorted out. After all you’ve had 2000 years.
Read Blessed Theophylacts commentaries on the New Testament. That’s actually more important than having a absolutely perfect translation in English.
Please a Septuagint in spanish for catholics to read it 😢
If it can be done for English, it can be done for Spanish. Don't hold your breath, though. These things take time. Spanish already has numerous translations. Another like what is being discussed here would be a major undertaking.
It's not even a Bible, it's just the New Testament. The Bible is comprised of the Old and New Testaments.
OSB gets the job done, but not particularly well.
No, it does not. Translation is horrible
I wouldn't exactly call it horrible@@peterpapoutsis496
I don't think so. They need to start all over again and fix the defects. Pray fervently for that, and it will come to pass.
@@tabletalk33 Not going to happen. Best you can hope for is a totally different translation
@@nathanmagnuson2589 I just said that. Starting all over again = a totally different translation. That's what we need.
You do woffle quite a lot
Mmm, waffles. Yum.
I don't like the Orthodox Bible..
Nkjv😂
Call upon the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be Saved!
The King James Bible is Perfect! Get a King James Bible and believe. Read John.
Nope - it is based on a heretical Jewish version written much later, and deliberately designed to suppress the very obvious Theophanies throughout the OT. Do NOT use the KJV. It is built to undermine Christology as it was fully understood by the Apostles.
@@bolshoefeodor6536 Produce your cause. Bring forth your strong reasons. Again it is the standard by which they judge all other versions. That's just a fact You don't even have one to put forward as perfect, do you?
I'm a Catholic and both you as an Orthodox and I as a Catholic believe that we are not receiving Christ along with bread and wine but that we are receiving Christ fully and substantially; ie, bread and wine no longer exist. The difference is that the Orthodox don't bother with exact formulas about how this comes about, it just is. And that is because, I believe, that during the Reformation, the Orthodox did not have to contend with the differing heretical views of the Holy Eucharist while all claiming the bible as their sole rule of faith (it wasn't the Bible actually but their own arrogant opinions but I digress). By the way, come back home.
Jesus died once not multiple times daily.
The phrase “ do this in remembrance of me” did not mean transubstantiation
However as you think so you believe.
I believe Jesus is the Messiah he died for our sins once and whomsoever believes will be saved.
Communion is a remembrance of his sacrifice, it is not the sacrifice over and over again.
@@RUGRAF-rf8fi you’re wrong, period.
@@RUGRAF-rf8fi read John 6 and meditate on it.
@@rraddenawe are home. Return to Orthodoxy.
@@countryboyred no, you are separated.
Here's an idea. Maybe not defer your morality to a book that condones slavery, child brides, genocidal war, and forced abortion
An interesting idea. Maybe don't defer your morality to a humanity that has actually done far worse things.
@claytontheroman777 I feel bad for you
@@pmtoner9852Likewise.
@claytontheroman777 do you also feel bad for me because I surrendered my personal autonomy, morality, and rationality to a book written by people who thought men morally superior to women, that the sky was a metal shell and the earth was less than 5000 years old ?
@@pmtoner9852I feel sorry because you think that your misinterpretations of an ancient and sacred text are worth broadcasting ad nauseam on the internet.
I'm amazed you managed to talk about this garbage for half an hour.
Considering the old testament was written in 500bce at best after the Babylonians destroyed the Jewish temple, and the new testament was written by Constantine in 325ce, then re-written multiple times after that, how can you possibly devote so much time and effort to an iron age mentality that has no place in today's society.
All religions should be redundant by now , but the fear of leaving this type of control is nothing more than brainwashing!
There are numerous errors in your historical summary here but worst of all is your denigration of the iron age.
@claytontheroman777 I'm glad you mentioned errors, would you like me to show you the absolute abominations written in the bible !
Heres a start for you ;
If a man rapes a woman he must pay her father fifty shekels of silver then he must marry the woman.
Please tell me how this male dominated view on the world is anything other than sick!
That isn't even the worst ,I can go if you want.
By way , I was a Christian, I was spoon fed that junk from birth , thats how I know its utter nonsense!
The New Testament was written by Constantine? That statement alone would get you laughed out of the room by even the most ardently anti-Christian scholars.
@CosmicMystery7 really !
It was actually started in 312 ce and finished in 325ce for his new religion to be the centre of Constantinople.
After Constantines death the council of Constantinople was formed which eventually became the Catholic Church!
The only one being laughed is you !
Do you know where Constantinople is ?
Do you know why the new testament is written in Greek?
Obviously not.
That's the problem with all Christians, you cling to that bullshit book called the bible without reading anything else.
Do you want to know why you don't read anything else.
Because your afraid!
You're afraid of the truth and you're afraid of your god.
I'm NOT!
Constantine wrote the NT? What’s your source for this? Even NT scholar & atheist Bart Ehrman said, ‘The historical reality is that the emperor Constantine had nothing to do with the…canon of scripture...’ Truth and fiction in The Da Vinci Code p.74
We have plenty of manuscripts before 325 AD. Have you even studied this topic? No historian would espouse what you’re saying.