www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Scripture and Patristic Writings Which translation?

Which translation is most commonly used by Orthodox Christians and why?

There are many translations in use by the English-speaking Orthodox:

1. Authorized Version / King James Version - The first monumental translations of the Byzantine liturgy was done by Isabel Hapgood in the early 1900's. It mimicked the Elizabethan style of English used in the Anglican Church. It was an excellent publication is I'd wager that there is not a single Byzantine parish (Orthodox or Catholic) that does not still have a copy of it in a handy place. There are several editions of the Gospel and Epistle lectionaries available. In recent years, the publication of the Orthodox Study Bible (NT) has introduced the New King James Version. I like the footnotes but prefer other translations.

2. Revised Standard Version (CE) - Very common as the language is more understandable than the KJV. The Antiochian Orthodox seem to use this translation more than the Slavic Orthodox Churches.

3. New American Bible - The Byzantine Catholic Church published a full Gospel and Epistle lectionary using this translation in the 1960's and it is the dominant one in use in most of the Byzantine Catholic Churches (although some do prefer the RSV). It is also the most commonly one used in the Johnstown Orthodox Churches (most likely since they use American English in the celebration of the Divine Services).

It is curious that many of the Orthodox Churches have chosen to embrace a style of English that is no longer the vernacular. I know that the OCA approved the use of American English but I do not know of any parishes using it or if they have an approved American English translation of the liturgical texts. The Evangelical Orthodox mission of the Antiochian Orthodox Church used American English for a number of years but was directed to return to Elizabethan usage. That was a mistake in my opinion.

There has been no recent effort to standardize the Orthodox Churches on one English translation of the scriptures. With each passing year and each new English translation this particular "problem" becomes more evident. As "Moose" pointed out, the KJV, NKJV, and RSV are probably the three most popular. Although he mentions the NAB, I'm sure that for the most part this is only in the Johnstown Diocese. In the OCA you will find a variety of biblical translations, the RSV being the most widely used, with the KJV a close second, but I believe you will find the NKJV becoming very popular. The NRSV has been banned for liturgical or study use by the OCA Synod of Bishops.

Regarding liturgical texts for feasts, this is also the case. The Antiochians tend to use the "five-pounder" (Nassar) and the Greeks use their own texts published by Contos. The OCA has no particular single source of liturgical translations, although St. Vladimir's Seminary and the Department of Religious Education have published service books on several major feasts, and most of these texts have become "standard" translations, for lack of any other.

The OCA did indeed approve the use of "You and Your" in the liturgical texts, but few have been published with this usage, although the music effort now posted on the OCA webiste uses this form. Several dioceses have resisted this change, however. The bottom line is that there is little uniformity. Some see this is a benefit, others a hinderance.

Priest Thomas

Dear Friends,

The issue for me here is - why isn't a special Orthodox English translation of the Scriptures a priority for North American Orthodoxy?

Alex

Alex,

Ever gone to http://www.lxx.org?

Dear Joseph,

Yes, I have - and it is wonderful.

But some say there is a school of thought within Orthodoxy that is "LXXist."

Are there no other valid versions of the Scripture?

Alex

What do you mean by LXXist or valid?

The LXX is considered to be the best manuscript for the OT since that is what the apostles quoted from. And, it doesn't have the supposed doctoring up of the texts that the Masoretes following Jamnia did. Certainly, the KJV is well respected in Orthodoxy even though it is not based off of the LXX but the Masoretic text. In the Antiochian Archdiocese, our Psalms are based off the LXX Psalter. In the Ruthenian Archeparcy, the psalms (at least for Presanctified) are based off the LXX. Are the Ruthenians dreaded LXXists? Oh, no...

Dear Joseph,

Glad to hear you're not LXXist .

It's a term I heard from others.

I'm not smart enough to concoct such a modern, "with it" term.

Alex

I find it odd that the Orthodox never seem to make use of the NIV (New International Version), the 1978 translation that became the first version to outsell the KJV in the US. Any thoughts? It's a tad more modern than the old RSV, but none of the feminist influence of the NRSV.

Dear Tim,

The NIV is truly a beautiful version and I agree!

That creeping LXXism . . .

Alex

Indeed, the Septuagint version of the OT is the "official" version of the Orthodox Church. That is, all service books in traditionally Orthodox lands have always used the Septuagint for all OT readings. (Reasons for this are obvious from the NT and the apostolic period, but we can discuss this further, if you wish.) I failed to mention in my previous post that, at least in the OCA, OT readings (including the Psalms) which are published in various service books based on the RSV are "corrected" to the Septuagint rendering.

St. Tikhon's Seminary also published a horologion with an original translation of the Septuagint Psalms (as many as were needed for the work). The OCA Diocese of Canada also published a complete Septuagint Psalter, and of course, there are others (Holy Transfiguration, Contos, New Skete, et al...).

However, the work has been uneven, and no official complete correction has been published. The Orthodox Study Bible project is planning on releasing a new translation of the Septuagint (which I believe will be "in the style of the NKJV" and published by Thomas Nelson Publishing) in late 2004. There are two other current projects of translating the Septuagint into English: NETS - New English Translation of the Septuagint (not under the auspices of an Orthodox body), and another from Holy Dormition Covent in Colorado, who also published the so-called "Orthodox New Testament."

Priest Thomas

Bless me Father!

excellent web site, a lot of thought and dedication has gone a longgggggggg way.

rose

Here is the new Bible that I just purchased.

The Navarre Bible New Testament Compact edition. Here is the description from the website.

This volume contains the entire New Testament (RSV Catholic Edition) with short introductions to each of the four Gospels, Acts, Letters and Revelation. It is called a 'compact' edition because it runs to 756 pages as distinct from the 2400 pages in the Standard Edition of the Navarre Bible (New Testament in twelve volumes).

This Bible's distinguishing feature is its notes/commentaries. In this volume they occupy about the same amount of space as the Biblical text. These notes try to provide doctrinal and ascetical explanations that flow from the biblical text itself and that are in line with the Church's understanding of it.

Here is a link to the web site;

http://www.scepterpublishers.org/catalogue2/1NavarreBible.htm


David

Dear David,

Glad to see you are not LXXist!

I'll have to get a copy for myself.

Alex

Glory to Jesus Christ?

Which of the the Jerusalem English translations do you prefer, the Jerusalem Bible, or the New Jerusalem?

In Quebec, they go with the "Bible Jerusalem," and seem to ignore the new one. I've noticed that here in the states, it's easier to find the New Jerusalem, but not the original English transaltion from the French.

Thank you and God bless,
Christopher