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

I use the RSV when I teach, but generally because all the liturgical quotations from the liturgy/prokeimenon/stichera are quotations from that version, and it makes it easier for students to see just how much of the liturgy is Scripture quotations.

See this book for more: http://www.lulu.com/content/725388

Very well put.

Father Bless,

I understand what you are saying and I am certainly no Bible Scholar wannabe. However, I don't think that going to the Church Fathers has to do with wanting to be a scholar. And agian, as you and others mention, it is important to keep in mind that this is a "study" bible meant for laymen. But, it gives the impression, oftentimes, that it is for non-Orthodox laymen who are interested in becoming Orthodox. In which case, it perhaps should be subtitled "Seeker's Edition". I don't say that in jest or with sarcasm. It is, at best, extremely odd, that prayers to the Mother of our God were not included in the prayers.

My hope is that at least the simple, but very important, things like this were changed. And I think that this would have been at least partially due to the criticisms that were brought forth because it openned other people's eyes (like mine) to the fact of how very unOrthodox it is to offer a simple rule of prayer ignoring the Theotokos. And I have heard some of these preists talk and they are not skiddish on the Theotokos, so I think the decision to not include her in the prayers was doen with the best of intentions. But, hopefully, they realized after all of this that perhaps that wasn't the best decision. It's not just the mean and nasty nay-sayers that found the seeker-bent to the OSB concerning.

I own the OSB (NT version). But I still need to make an informed decision as to if I want to spend my money on it or not.

Either way, I do commend the work these men (and women?) put into this Bible. I am happy to see that it is having such success. I really am. My decision to buy or not buy the Bible is a completely personal one and I do not wish to talk anyone in or out of buying the OSB.

I really do mean all of this with complete respect. But respect doesn't mean just ignoring the small issues that matter to you.

God bless, (I'm sorry, I don't know the proper sign-off when speaking to a priest).

Xpy

haha make no mistake, Xpycoctomos, my comments were reserved for those who really could have participated.

When doing my research, the Church fathers were the source for almost all of my notes. When editing such a vast work, I know that they wanted several things not glossed over:

The Holy Trinity
The Incarnation of Christ
The Unity and Holiness of the Church

other notes would naturally take a back seat to these concerns.

I myself remember the OSB NT and Psalms without the prayers to the Theotokos, and was astonished to learn at the OSB workshop why they were left out. It was sheepishly admitted that this error would not be repeated. Whew!

I would say this, then, about spending money on the OSB:

Do you need it, even if you are Orthodox? No

Would it be useful? If you are leading an Orthodox bible study, I would say yes.

Is it a necessity? Of course not.

I'm in favor of anything that makes it easier for me to teach the Holy Scriptures to those that want to learn, as I am tired of having to produce material myself/

No disrespect intended to those who are genuinely wondering about the OSB. I've spent so much time dealing with naysayers about even reading the Bible at all, that I'm a little flabbergasted by them all.

Then, there's the 'we're more Orthodox than you' crowd.

Oy!

Father Bless,

I really appreciate your response(s) and I am glad that you did not take my posts as petty bickering. I am sooooo glad they recognized the Theotokos prayer issue as an error. That tells me more about the intent of their audience and makes me want to get it a lot more.

However,

I am still curious about that annotated Bible from some monastery in Colorado. My priest has one and he loves it. Does nayone else know anything about it? Any website? Cost? My priest got it as a gift so he doesn't know, but he thinks it was very expensive.

Thanks in advance everyone.

Xpy

Xpy,

For teaching, I imagine that it would be better to use multiple sources. If something is lacking, as is usually the case when priorities need to me made in choosing what to include and what not to include, then supplementary material should be provided.

The OSB does not seem to be the "Orthodox Almanac", it did not seem to be the aim of the contributors and editing staff to encapsulate Orthodoxy as a whole with the study Bible.

I have been disappointed when prayer books I rely on do not have some of my favorite prayers, or when the prayer I reflect on most is truncated by editors who thought it too long. For this, I have more than one prayer book. Each has its strengths, if I were to focus on what they lack I would be pulling my hair out every time I try to pray.

The criticisms I've seen of the OSB in this thread have not been fundamental to the aim of the work. I could understand a critique that reflects on serious matters of doctrine, disagreements over the dating of a chronology in an appendix, or arguments on what is included. When arguments focus on what something is not, then the fodder for such an argument is endless. The focus then turns on �should have� or �could have� and tends to depend more on false expectations.

Here is a better question to ask: is what it is valuable or is what it is a waste of my investment?

Terry

that is what I was and am asking and those critical articles gave me precise questions to ask. Sure,. i didn't care about most of what they said. But there wre criticisms on not only what was lacking, but what was there that also made me doubt the material a little more whenever I found some sort of annotation surprising

I understand what you are saying but I don't think that what you it disqualifies all of the criticisms of the OSB. Some of them (even if not most of them) are valid especially after considering what the true intent of the OSB as you and others have wisely explained that intent to be.

I got mine last week and I like it.

Then again, I had some pretty horrid translations around the house (I used to collect Bibles and the only one I brought with me when I moved was a Good News Bible I got for Confirmation 20 years ago -- what was I thinking? I blame a rather active social life as a college student for clouding my judgment...)

I wish it were a bit more annotated, but the NT is pretty well full of notes, which I've already found helpful.

One thing that I hoped would be answered, but isn't, is why everyone translates the beast in Psalm 104:26 differently. Is he a "creature", a "leviathan" (my favorite, and apparently the original Hebrew word), a "dragon" (which I think is OSB), a "whale"? Is this issue related to Hebrew Talmud vs. Greek Septuagint?

I'm giving myself 5 extra bonus points for knowing the Psalm number off hand, which proves that I'm paying attention at Vespers and reading my bible at home (when I do vespers at home)!

Criticism is not useless, but when not followed up with suggestions for improving, or even better for actual efforts to improve, the usefulness of those criticisms is limited. Criticism can of course not only not be useful, it can be detrimental. Especially when it veers out of constructive criticism and in to judgmentalism or creation of factionalism or divisiveness; or does done without charity. What I have noticed in parish life, which may or not be a parallel, is that lots of people are ready to offer up criticisms about many things but few are actually willing to help with their time or money when it is needed. Perhaps I am viewing this issue through that prism.

I ordered the OSB this week and look forward to getting it. I will decide if it makes sense for my Sunday School class and we can retire the NIV's we currently use.

I think that certainly could be parallel. All I know is that I found many of the criticisms to be legit and helpful for me in discerning what I feel I should expect out of an ORTHODOX study Bible. That is not to say that I found most of it helpful. i don't remember becuase it's been 5 years now since I read the article. I DO remember that I found some (much?) of it to be a bit sharp and seemed to have a personal bone to pick. I wrote much of that off as (understandable) frustration, but still not always useful as it may have been too emotional (rather than focused on positive construction).

I do defintiely see your points. I just don't think that the criticisms should be written off.

I will also point out that although these people were invited to participate in the creation or recreation of the OSB, it is unfair to suggest that since they chose not to participate in THIS commission, they therefore were just whining to whine and lost their opportunity to help the Church.

Something parallel I can think of is the ROCOR's criticism of the WCC. I mean the MP and other Orthodox jurisdictions involved could equally say to them "stop complaining about how messed up the WCC is and DO something about it!" and then we could accuse the ROCOR of just wanting to complain. But the ROCOR's point would be that the WCC is not a proper vehicle to witness to the rest of the world and we risk to lose more than we gain. Now, I am not commenting on who is right or wrong there nor do I wish to enter into any real conversation about the WCC and our involvement in it. My point is that perhaps the nay-sayers of the OSB are saying the entire perspective of how they have gone about the OSB is completely wrong. The entire premise of how they go about the OSB is wrong. Now, I don't agree with that, however, if I did and I had a place of leadership within the Church and I felt that this approach to how a Study Bible in the Orthodo Church were wrong was completely off-base and therefore possibly harmful to the mindset of the Church and how they approach the Bible, I wouldn't engage in teh commission either. Any group of people has an agenda. One enters a group to help an agenda... not to change it.

So I feel it is unfair to say "they had their chance." No, perhaps they didn't because they don't agree with the agenda to start with. "To create a Study Bible" is not really the agenda (no one has a problem with that) but rather "To create a Study Bible that focuses on these elements and that will be edited in this way and that will be only so long". I think these nay-sayers would suggest that an OSB should necessarily have longer annotations, more Church Father quotes and a myriad of other things that teh commission put together to create the OSB would never consider.

If the nay-sayers are making an OSB, it will probably look wholly different, be of a different length and so on. And they may be doing that. I mean, taking on the task that they wish to may take even longer and more money that they also do not have.

But, in the end, I agree with your sentiments that this OSB does serve a useful purpose within and outside of the Orthodox Church, warts (if there are still any) and all. I jsut have to ask myself (as you guys have said to me) if it serves the purpose I am looking for. I THINK, after reading this thread, that it will. I also think that I would LOVE to buy the OSB that the nay-sayers would create that may serve a different purpose (perhaps an example might be why I use my Antiochian Red Prayer Book a lot - because it's handy - and why I use the Jordanville - because it tends to be more complete... and I love them both).

Anyway, thanks for hearing out my blabs. In the end, all of your posts have been soooo helpful to me just to sort out my thoughts.

God bless!

Xpy

If I'm not mistaken, the Catholic bishops spent about a million dollars to get the NAB translated...

To focus the question a little more...was there no Orthodox Bible in English(not necessarily study Bible) in use through the year 2000?

In the Latin Church, there was Jerome's Vulgate...then the Douay Rheims (English)...then Confraternity...then the modern translations.

What about the Orthodox?

I don't know what the Talmud may say but Leviathan is in the Hebrew of the Masoretic text link [en.wikipedia.org], and is something like livyatan or liwyathan depending on choice of pronunciation/transliteration. Some scholars believe it may refer to a twisted serpent (see Isa 27:1) which may be the crocodile.

The Greek of the Septuagint has drakōn from which one would infer dragon.

Dn. Anthony

The honest truth: We're not tha Organized. When you have so many jurisdictions, it's honestly amazing that Orthodox were able to get together a commission that (I believe) was pan-Orthodox to do this at all.

The other thing is that, when you think about it, as a people who are not Sola Scriptura (just like Catholics), the urgency of having and official version is not so urgent becuase any translation is going to be off. The important thing is having the guidance of the Church. Teh Catholic Church in the US has the organization and the numbers (of people) to properly fund such a venture. Sure, if this were the first priority of the OCA or any SCOBA Church the money could probably have been found to properly fund this commission. I'm not saying it's not important, I'm not even saying that perhaps it shouldn't be a higher priority, but the fact of the matter is that event he NIV would work fine (even if not at all preferred) because for us (like for you) it's not just "me and my Bible". It's "My Church" and we understand the Bible through that.

Now, with all of that said, we still do not have any official anything in English. The OSB is only "The OSB" becuase it's the only one anyone knows about. But really it could just as easily be "An OSB". The translation is, I think, the NKJV (I think?) with revised parts. But you can hardly call that a new translation or an official translation. What makes it Orthodox are the annotations, the explanations and so on. It is not official in the same way your transaltions are official. Does that makes sense?

Xpy

SO true!



And that is what I really like about it.

Alice