www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Scripture and Patristic Writings Orthodox Study Bible

Christ is risen!

Does anyone here use the Orthodox Study Bible (New Testament plus Psalms)? If you do, what do you think of it? Would you recommend it? What would you say are the "pros" and "cons" of it?


God bless,

Karen

Karen, Christ is Risen!

I have it and I use it and I don't. The articles in it are good along with the lectionary. The prayer section has something to be desired. I use it when I give a presentation, and have to have a text handy. Otherwise I use Quickverse software for my regular work on both Mac and PC. Also,, I believe within a year the complete Old and New Testament of the Orthodox Study Bible will be out. The only question will be how much will it cost :rolleyes: ?

I hope this helps.

In the Risen Christ,
Father Anthony+

Father Anthony, bless!

Indeed He is risen!

Thanks for your feedback. I just got it today, and it seems like it's pretty good, insofar as there are a lot of useful tools in it. I haven't really gotten a chance to look too closely at it, though.

And funny, the other question I was going to ask is, does anyone know when they're coming out with the OT? Ha.

God bless,

Karen

Karen, Christ is Risen!

From all that I have seen in my mail, the release date has been pushed back to next year for the complete Orthodox Study Bible. This is the second or third time it has been pushed back, but they are trying very hard to make it a work that is worth having. Time will tell, and we all await the release.

In the Risen Christ,
Father Anthony+

Quite a few people were unhappy with it when it first came out, noting that it represented a Protestant outlook, rather than an Orthodox one.

I think Metropolitan Anthony (Bloom) wrote or edited a critical review. I think it is available on the www.sourozh.org [sourozh.org] website

There is another 2 volume NT set...check the info at

Vol 1
http://www.light-n-life.com/shopping/order_product.asp?ProductNum=OZNE100

Vol 2

http://www.light-n-life.com/shopping/order_product.asp?ProductNum=OZNE105

james

Despite the nit-picking criticisms, the OSB is still one of the best tools available to English-speaking Orthodox Christians. Its helped very many grow in their faith.

I agree with Ghazar. I find it to be one of the most useful study bibles that I have, and recommend it to many, along with the Navarre and the Ignatius Study Bibles.

I taught a year long course on Luke's Gospel and relied very heavily on the outline provided in the front of that book. That and the articles and icons make it a great catechetical resource! I actually like the Morning and Evening prayer section in the back. It is great when I pray with my family or travel.

I did not recognize any protestantizing elements in the commentary (save one), so I'm curious what the criticisms were.

Not surprisingly, I only had one issue with the commentary...

I did think that the interpretation of Matt 16:18 was more than a little weak in its treatment of Simon's name change - in fact, it is completely ABSENT from the commentary except to say that "rock does not refer to Peter himself".

Ok then - I'll bite. If the "rock" is only Simon's faith, what is the significance of changing Simon's name to Peter (rock)?

Sadly (and a little surprisingly) we are greeted with a deafining silence on that point from the commentators, which is strange given the fact that Jesus never changed anyone else's name anywhere else in the Gospels.

In the Old Testament, a name change usually signified a covenant blessing on one who was to be the Patriarch/Father-figure/Leader of the People of God in whatever new manifestation of the kingdom that was unfolding. (Abram to Abraham, Jacob to Israel - Sarai to Sarah positions Sarah with Abraham as a 'New Eve' of sorts, recapitulating the original covenant...and fall, of course.) We continue this practice with the clergy who recieve new names at their ordination or elevation.

Jesus is declaring something new vis-a-vis his kingdom, and Simon and his profession of faith is at the heart of this new declaration.

Clearly Simon's profession of Jesus' Messiahship and divinity is the rock on which the Church is built, but then by naming Simon "Rock" or Peter he is completely identified with that faith, and vice versa.

Hence the granting of the "keys of the kingdom" in the subsequent verse.

The commentary on 16:19 on the "keys to the kingdom" gets even worse. The special authority given to Simon Peter is acknowledged (thankfully), but then the distinction is made that his authority is not "over" but "among" the other apostles. This, of course, begs the question - "What is the special authority given to him if it is not to be the leader with and over the college of apostles?"

When you read text concerning the whole event, Jesus is doing something very deliberate. He very clearly:

1. Addresses Simon only while in the presence of the twelve because of his profession of faith.
2. Declares him "blessed" because of what the "Father" has revealed to him, which could reference the patriarchal blessing which transfers authority of the rule of the family from father to son. (As mentioned, nowhere else in the NT does Jesus declare anyone "blessed" and then change their name.)
3. Renames Simon "rock", thus identifying him with the rock of faith that he professes.
4. Declares that He will build His ecclesia (assembly - qaal YHWH) on peter/rock/faith, and that somehow this combination of peter/rock/faith will prevent the "gates of Hell" from prevailing against the assembly.
5. Gives to Simon Peter the "keys of the kingdom" and the power of "binding and loosing" (alone at this point, despite the claim of the commentary on 16:19) as a form of participation in Jesus' own rabbinical and Davidic-Royal authority.

Even though the powers of "binding and loosing" are granted to the apostles, one cannot argue with the fact that the KEYS ALONE have been given to Simon "the Rock".

The fact that the commentary continues and declares no connection to papal (Rome) claims of primacy is absurd, especially given the overwhelming evidence of the fathers. This type of interpolation does damage to the clear meaning of the text.

Part of the issue is that the OSB commentators are reading into the text certain historical issues, namely the historic exercise of the leadership/authority of the papacy of Rome which has NOT at various times and ways observed faithfully Jesus' command to avoid following the example of the "rulers of this earth" who are haughty and lord their authority over their followers. Interestingly enough, the root of the word for authority is augere, which means "to increase or augment". This understanding gives new meaning to Jesus's request/command to Simon Peter later in the gospel to "strengthen his brothers". The authority granted to Simon Peter is meant to be a service that "augments":

Martyrion: The witness and mission of the Church to bring salvation to the nations declaring the faith of Peter's profession

Koinonia: The common life of the ecclesia of Jesus, as exemplified in Acts 2:42

Diakonia: The leadership/service of his apostolic co-laborers of the gospel.

It is not meant to be a self-serving power, but rather kenotic after the example of our Lord, the eternal and true head of our ecclesia. Simon Peter's (or his successor's) own interests should be secondary to the need to support martyrion, koinonia and diakonia .

Unfortunately, there are examples of several occupants of the see of Rome who have failed to exemplify this ideal, and while the "gates of hell" have not prevailed over the profession of our Messianic faith as declared boldly by Simon, it seems at times to have prevailed upon the individual members and leaders of our ecclesia...including some of the occupants of the Petrine see.

Returning to the OSB, I still love the commentary and have thought about giving it away to friends who are interested in the Christian East. But I would be sure to highlight the troublesome commentary on those passages, perhaps even preparing and distributing a supplementary article to address this issue.

Gordo

Christ is Risen!

This is an excerpt from a sermon by St. Augustine:

Our Lord Jesus Christ, in the final days of His earthly life, in the days of His mission to the race of man, chose from among the disciples His twelve Apostles for preaching the Word of God. Among them, the Apostle Peter for his fiery ardour was vouchsafed to occupy the first place (Mt 10:2) and to be as it were the representative person for all the Church. And therefore it is said to him, preferentially, after the confession: "And I give thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven: and if thou bindest upon the earth, it will be bound in the Heavens: and if thou loosenest upon the earth, it will be loosened in the Heavens (Mt 16; 19). Wherefore it was not one man, but rather the One Universal Church, that received these "keys" and the right "to bind and loosen." And that actually it was the Church that received this right, and not exclusively a single person, turn your attention to another place of the Scriptures, where the same Lord says to also all His Apostles: "Receive ye the Holy Spirit" -- and further after this: "Whoseso sins ye remit, are remitted them: and whoseso sins ye retain, are retained" (Jn 20:22-23); or: "with what ye bind upon the earth, will be bound in Heaven: and with what ye loosen upon the earth, will be loosened in the Heavens" (Mt 18:18). Thus, it is the Church that binds, the Church that loosens; the Church, built upon the foundational corner-stone -- Jesus Christ Himself (Eph 2:20) doth bind and loosen. Let both the binding and the loosening be feared: the loosening, in order not to fall under this again; the binding, in order not to remain forever in this condition. Wherefore "by the passions of his own sins -- says Wisdom -- is each ensnared" (Prov 5:22); and except for Holy Church nowhere is it possible to receive the loosening.

I took that from Al Green's web site which has a section surrounding this issue. A link is here [aggreen.net] . I post this not to engage in a debate or to prove people wrong, but to show there is another perspective. I think the OSB in regards to this issue, both the passages in in the Holy Gospel of St. Matthew and the Acts of the Apostles, actually stays pretty well in line with traditional Orthodox views of collegiality and the role of St. Peter the Apostle. Obviously Catholics have a different view.

Karen

The release of the full OT has been delayed a few times. I believe Fr. Sparks has had some health issues which has further delayed the full edition coming out. I look forward to an updated version of the Septuagint in English since the best we have now is the Brenton edition.

Andrew

Many thanks, everyone!

Gordo, I did notice the commentary on Matt 16:18, and I wrinkled my nose. Exegetically, petros and petra mean exactly the same thing-- the Greek word for "pebble" is lithos-- not to mention that Jesus was speaking Aramaic and not Greek, and the Greek word for rock is kepha... how is Simon referred to sometimes? As "Kephas." The only reason that Simon is called Petros is because petra is feminine, and Simon was a man. Also the grammatical structure of our Lord's words make it very clear that He could not have been referring to anyone or anything except Peter himself; even some of the more intellectually honest Protestants acknowledge this. One has to do all kinds of exegetical gymnastics to deny it.

Not to mention that to ancient Jews (and even to modern day Orthodox Jews) names are sacred, considered to be a part of the person, and as such cannot be changed except by God. Thus in holy Scripture, a name change is always God-given, and always denotes a change in status or mission-- "Abram" became "Abraham", "Sarai" became "Sarah", etc.

Anyway, I didn't care for that particular footnote, but I figure that it can't do any harm as long as I KNOW that's it's wrong. :p Hopefully, most of the others are more orthodox.

God bless,

Karen

Andrew,

St. Augustine is often quoted as offering a contrary patristic witness on this issue. I would only point out that when the debate is about issues such as filioque or original sin, his status as an authoritative or universal witness is regarded quite differently by some.

And yet, no would question the fact that the primacy referenced in these passages is indeed ecclesial and not purely personal. Simon Peter receives the "keys" as an ecclesial person acting in persona ecclesia as well as in persona Christi. The fact that Simon is given the keys and the power to bind and loose first and in the context of the conversation I discussed above is also an indicator of his primacy within the context of the twelve. Augustine is correct in so far as during this conversation, the keys are entrusted to the whole Church, but it is through the establishment of Simon in his service as "Rock". While there is certainly a connection between the entrustment of the "keys of the kingdom" and the power of "binding and loosing," it is significant that in the post-resurrection event of the Risen Jesus' appearance and words to the Apostles in the Upper Room, no explicit mention of "keys" is made...only of the "breath" of the Holy Spirit.

To your point, while the OSB commentary in Matthew and Acts may faithfully reflect the position of some Orthodox regarding the primacy of the Bishop of Rome vis-a-vis the other churches, my primary issue is its silence on the signifigance of the changing of Simon's name to "rock", which it only treats in a cursory, negative way by indicating that "rock does not refer to Peter himself". To me, this dismisses an inconvenient fact which should be addressed, albeit from an Orthodox perspective, that respects the integrity of the whole account. Otherwise, why highlight in the commentary on 16:19 that Simon Peter is granted a "special authority"?

One additional point - might not another indication of the connection to patriarchal blessing be the following: Jesus, after declaring Simon "blessed," specifically calls him "Simon Bar-Jonah" (a reference to his earthly paternity and lineage) before mentioning that "flesh and blood" (a reference to the power and bonds of natural generation) has not revealed/unveiled this eternal truth to him. Rather, Jesus' Father "who is in heaven" has revealed it, pointing to a spiritual regeneration on the part of Simon now renamed/reborn ("born from above"?) as Peter, sharing in the Sonship and Messianic authority of Christ Himself. (Hence the granting of the "keys" to the Father's kingdom of "heaven" where He dwells.)

Sorry, I don't mean to belabor the point, but if the purpose of this account is merely the fact that one of the disciples has recognized Jesus' Messiahship and divinity, why did Jesus continue by declaring Simon "blessed," changing his name, giving him the keys, etc etc. (I believe that I read somewhere that the "you" on the receiving end of the keys is singular, not plural in the Greek. As I am not a reader of Greek yet, I cannot verify this fact at this time. Can anyone else?)

And that is my crux of my criticism of the passage by the OSB - its noticeable silence on what might constitute contrary evidence to its explicit criticism of the Catholic position in a subsequent verse. I do not expect the OSB to lay out all possible interpretations, but I would only point out that it dedicates space for a number of passages to dismiss the Catholic position in 16:19 that would have been better spent in explaining the event of re-naming in the previous verse.

Otherwise, it is a very fine spiritual, theological and catechetical resource.

Gordo

Christ is Risen!

It was said above

Even though the powers of "binding and loosing" are granted to the apostles, one cannot argue with the fact that the KEYS ALONE have been given to Simon "the Rock".

Whatever his opinions on other matters may be, St. Augustine clearly shows there is another interpretation and an argument with this "fact". I believe that's probably why Catholic scholar Eamon Duffy says the following:

In this article [thetablet.co.uk] where he goes on to talk about what he calls other "foundational myths of the Papacy" (his words). The Peter/Rock of the Papacy claims were later and contested.

Overall I think what is being discussed here is interpretation, and many people can look at the same thing in different ways. Catholics see the passage in question in one way, Orthodox in another. I think the OSB sticks to the pertinent point of the Petros/Petra discussion, in that the rock of the church is the faith Peter holds and not the person of Peter. I really would not expect the editors to go off in detailed exegesis to give alternate view points, especially ones not supported in the church.

Andrew

And yet, Andrew, this is precisely what they do in 16:19 when they deny papal claims.

And I still stand by my point. For the commentator, Simon's name change was an inconvenient fact of the narrative that was best avoided to set the stage for the denial of papal claims. The exegesis done here was polemical in what it omitted and later denied.

I certainly do not expect them to posit an argument in favor of papal claims. That is not my point, nor was it my expectation. But to take the trouble to deny these claims while neglecting an inconvenient fact within the narrative is nothing short of irresponsible.

Gordon

Dear brother Gordon,

I don't have time for a long drawn out debate, so I'll keep this short as I hope you will in your reply:

I think it is ridiculous that you are taking an Orthodox Study Bible to task for not presenting the Latin view of the Papacy. Heck, some Eastern Catholics don't even hold that view. It would be like me taking the Ignatius commentary to task for not teaching that St. Jn. 15:26 clearly shows that the Holy Spirit finds His origin in God the Father alone. Wouldn't I be a little unrealistic to expect to see Orthodox theology presented and defended by a Latin Catholic Bible commentary? In reality, lets be honest, were you not simply trying to make your polemical case against Orthodox teaching which was faithfully represented in our Study Bible (as it should be)?

The silence about our Lord calling St. Simon "Kephas" is no more "deafening" than was its silence about our Lord calling Sts. Jacob and John "the Sons of Thunder." I didn't notice you up in arms about this. Sure, Latin Catholics see great papal significance in every little detail written about St. Peter. But don't blame Orthodox if we do not attribute the same significance to all of these details. If our Fathers had taught thus, so would we. The same goes for the OSB's commentary in regard to the "keys to the kingdom." It doesn't "get worse." It rather remains consistent with our teaching. This shouldn't shock you.

If you pick up an Orthodox Bible and find Orthodox teaching contained therein, it should stand to reason.

Trusting in Christ's Light,
Wm. Ghazar Der-Ghazarian

Thank you Ghazar! Christ is Risen


For describing in a few words in which I would like to express.

In the Risen Christ!
Father Antthony+