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

Aidan

For what it's worth, they were published for two entirely different purposes, so comparison, in my humble opinion, is like asking who was a greater writer, Shakespeare or Milton. Shakespeare wrote plays, and Milton was a poet.

The Holy Apostles Convent NT, unless I'm wrong, was intended to be a reference library of patristic quotes on the New Testament, not a study bible in the classic sense of a one volume help for non-Biblically educated Christians.

The OSB NT & Psalms was published to put into the hands of laymen (not scholars or scholar-wannabes, like me) the text of the Scriptures with some Orthodox commentary.

Both are valuable, but picking one over the other is like picking wine over whiskey, or vice versa.

Anyway, that's my opinion. I've read them both, and many, many more.

Thank you. I like the format of the Orthodox New Testament. While the expressions in English are not common, the way the text is set up makes for not only easier reading but also easier understanding. Some Bibles break up the text so much with headings and verse divisions and columns it can be distracting. The ONT prints the text like a book or letter and you can get the thought better. IMHO anyway.

Anyway, I'm a whiskey man...after Lent, that is.

Aidan

Dear Aidan,

I share your appreciation of the Orthodox New Testament. I bought both the two volume set and the one volume pocket edition, which has only the text without the commentaries. I like the size of the text in the ONT and also the way the icons seem to integrate better into the text. I only wish they had all been able to be reproduced in colour, but I suppose that would have been expensive. I haven't seen the new OSB yet, but I wasn't impressed by the original OSB NT and felt that many of the criticisms made in the reviews were justified. I much prefer to use the ONT, but I am hoping to get a chance to see the new OSB for myself.

Brigid

Aidan

I'm with you. I'm a Lagavulin man.

Just for your information, the leatherbound OSB is now out also. I was given a copy yesterday while assisting at a retreat.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

Dear friends,

I was given a copy of the new complete, Orthodox Study Bible in a leather edition.

I give it high marks so far. It is a beautiful edition. It features nice big print and I enjoy the commentary. I like that there is now a complete English Bible in a readable version translated from the Septuagint and Received Text. I was pleasantly surprised that the Psalms were revised, they are much better than the NKJV Psalms. I like the OT books reflecting the order of the Septuagint.

I found interesting a possible mistake in one of the commentaries- it mentions that Cyprian must have been following "the Vulgate" in his reading of a particular passage. But did not Jerome translate the Vulgate about 150 years after Cyprian? I think they meant to say, he followed the Latin text. But perhaps I am mistaken? Were all Latin versions referred to as the the Vulgate?

I am disappointed that there was not a more in depth article about why the Byzantine Church uses the Septuagint for the OT and the Received Text for the NT. I think that would have been helpful, something on the order of Bishop Isaiah's article.

I am mildly disappointed that the books of Chronicles are not labeled Paralipomenon.

The Orthodox Study Bible will be my first string bible, followed by the Orthodox New Testament and the Confraternity-Douay Bible. It will be my primary bible for reading, prayer, study and teaching.

It may still have flaws, but so do all versions. I appreciate that the commentary does not reflect rationalistic, skeptical scholarship. I think we have enough of that.

Blessings,

Lance

A Byzantine Christian in a Postmodern World [byzantinechristian.blogspot.com]

My review of the Orthodox Study Bible:

Review of the Orthodox Study Bible [byzantinechristian.blogspot.com]

Lance,

Just received my copy 15 minutes ago...it looks marvellous! I'm headed to Japan tomorrow with it in tow...can't wait to dive in!

God bless and thanks for encouraging the purchase...

Gordo

Are there any more reviews and thoughts on the OSB now that it is out for a while?
Silouan, old monk

Here is a review of the Orthodox Study Bible that is fairly critical of it:
http://swagnerwassen.wordpress.com/2008/04/21/7/

Ms. Wagner-Wassen does not regard it very highly and has very specific reasons why she does not. I still have a generally positive regard for it, and I am grateful to have it. But I think I should have done what Ms. Waggner-Wassen did, which was to use it for about a month before I reviewed it. I may have been too quick to praise it as uncritically as I have. I have been enthralled with having a complete Orthodox Bible with notes from a the Byzantine theological perspective.

It is great to have a bible translated from the Septuagint & Byzantine Text; but I wonder if the RSV with Apocrypha still is not a better translation stylistically. I think the RSV is definitely a better translation than the NKJV.

I wonder if in the end, the Orthodox Study Bible is more of a devotional Orthodox Study Bible than a scholarly study Bible?

Blessings,

Lance

A Byzantine Christian in a Postmodern World [byzantinechristian.blogspot.com]

Any thoughts on the New American Standard Bible (NASB)? I realize it omits the Apocrypha but, other than that, what think you?
Silouan, monk

NASB is a good literal translation, but the Apocrypha is a deal breaker for me, and also, there is a few passages that reflect the Protestant evangelical bias. Also, I believe that the RSV is for all practical purposes just as literal (they were both revised from the American Standard version of 1901) and is available with the Apocrypha, and is has better literal style.

Lance,

I read your reviews, and for the most part can agree with them. I do have a few major issues of my own working with the OSB. I have had the OSB for a couple months now and tried to use it with some regularity, but am somewhat frustrated with it.

First, I would have preferred if they had to use a matching text, the RSV would have been the text of choice. I am not a fan of the NKJV at all. That is just a personal preference. I was trained in seminary using the RSV, and I am more comfortable with the language.

Second, though I have to laud the project with including the complete apocrypha, the rearranging of the books to historical order, has become problematic if I am trying to work using it. I find myself constantly having to refer to the index to find were a certain book may be instead of the order I have memorized. This certainly can slow one down when working with a group bible study.

I find that as I have to have my eye prescription updated regularly, the text is not a good size or style for those that may have any vision difficulty.

Finally, I am not really all that impressed with the OSB except for the commentary articles. I have basically shelved the OSB and returned to the RSV unless I am looking for a commentary regarding a particular passage or part. I am certainly glad that I did not pay for the copies of the OSB that are now for the most part collecting dust on the bookshelf.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

Father Anthony,

I agree and use it the same way.

I also miss the chapter outlines from the NT/Psalms Versions. I thought that those were particularly useful.

What is your opinion to the changes in the Morning and Evening Prayer sections, if I may ask? I recall you mentioning some concerns about the NT/Psalm edition.

God bless,

Gordo

Gordo,

To be honest, I had not even looked at the pages containing the prayer section until you asked. An earlier criticism that existed and numerous hierarchs and clergy agreed with, that the prayers presented were a minimal offering and that the prayers concerning the Theotokos were missing. I just checked the one copy I have on my desk in my office, the current complete OSB offers even less. I do not know why they even spent the time to print the whole one page devoted to prayer.

With variants in prayer rules in the various traditions, I personally am against the inclusion in the OSB of any prayer rules or the suggestion thereof. It gives those that are unfamiliar with the Orthodox prayer life, the idea that this is the regular and full rule of prayer for these times. With the availability of various prayer books that offer a more complete prayer rule, there is not a necessity for the inclusion here. Also as has been suggested numerous times on this forum, any prayer rule or devotional life should done under the guidance of a spiritual father or director.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+