I believe the reason 4 Macc. didn't make the cut is that it is not considered canonical Scripture. Am I correct on that? This is the same reason why 2 Esdras wasn't translated. Perhaps there are some Churches, however, that consider these books canonical.

Joe

I think that 4 Maccabess is in the Slavonic version of the OT, but the Holy Synod of Greece version is what was used, so 4 Macc. was left out.

It is always in an appendix anyway, but it was slated to be included, so I included it in all my Bible study programs and materials.

Sigh.

Are 4 Maccabees and 2 Esdras located elsewhere?

The new Oxford Annotated RSV has them in the Ecumenical Study version.

Avoid the NRSV though.

Thanks, Father.

I have two bibles which where influenced by the Vulgate's nomenclature, and it has "1 Esdras" for Ezra and "2 Esdras" for Nehemiah.

What is being discussed here, from this naming system, would be "4 Esdras"?

Just who are the Eastern Orthodox Biblical scholars living here in North America with knowledge of Biblical languages and graduate degrees?

Fr. Eugen Pentiuc

I have a question: what New Testament version was used by the Orthodox prior to the King James Protestant version? And, why was a truly Orthodox translation not used instead of the Protestant version?

Thanks, I see that Fr. Dr. Eugen Pentiuc is a real scholar. I am going to order his tapes from Holy Cross. This is what the Orthodox Church has lacked for about the last century, scholars in scripture. We had scholars in all the other areas of theology.

I think this statement bears some unpacking.

The need for an English translation of sacred scripture as used in the Orthodox Church is a fairly recent phenomenon. No common accepted translation has yet been put in place. The official sources remain in Greek as handed down by the church. The main issue is actually not which end to end volume to use, since the church has never focused on the Bible as a single entity, but which translation to use to populate the service books. The Authorized, or King James Version, is a popular choice because of its use of the Majority Text for the New Testament which many feels adheres most closely to the Byzantine Text of the church. Most modern translations, including the RSV and NRSV, use the Eclectic Text for the New Testament which many find highly objectionable. Depending on the parish you visit you may hear different translations for the public readings which reflects local or jurisdictional preferences for different translations.

I also think it makes sense to consider that no English translation is going to be without its issues, and most of these issues relate to which underlying original texts were used to create the translations. The KJV for all its problems for instance, I would say is infinitely superior to the NAB for use in the church. The best solution for us is to create the best English translations from the Greek texts the church already uses.




Orest, the church has not simply lacked scholarship in my opinion, but in my experience general levels of Biblical knowledge and literacy are woefully inadequate among the laity. Although I must say my experience has been the same among lay Catholics.

I am really enjoying this thread and it has helped me. I am still not sure if I am going to buy the complete OSB that is out now or not. So far, a lot of your guys' posts have helped me to come closer to a decision, but I am still thinking becuase some of the odd problems in the OSB in some ways makes it little more useful than a plain old NIV (I know, messed up translations, but as FR John pointed out, no translationw ill be perfect and I already have the Church to guide me since I am not Sola Scriptura). A bit of an overstatement, but when I don't know exactly what to trust and the notes tend not to dig deeper than the common concerns of inquirers (for it seems that the main audience they were considering were inquirers and recent converts), it makes a lot of the notes kind of useless for me (and I don't consider myself to be that smart).

But I digress. AMM, I don't exclude you from the helpful posts I have read so far, in fact your longer post near the beginning of this thread really helped me balance my expectations. however, I disagree with what you said above.

It is nice if criticism is followed by action, but non-action does not make criticism useless. I found an article some years ago criticising the OSB (I'm not sure if it was the same article posted in the OP) which may have been written by the "usual suspects". However, the criticism was very helpful to me. Sure, perhaps the "usual suspects" should being doing something about it (and perhaps they are in their own way) but that doesn't mean that the criticisms don't help others to expect more from the OSB. I would hope (and actually expect) that the commission tried to respond to these criticisms with action. Include prayer to our Mother in the back of the Bible, include more patristic writings, correct some of the spurious notes that sounded more protestant than Orthodox, etc. IF they did any of this, then the criticisms did serve a positive purpose. I hope they did.

I am goign to continue reading this thread to contiune to educate myself. I have appreciated all of your comments guys.

Thanks again to everyone, I'm sure this won't be my last post here as I read on.

God bless!

Xpy

For what it's worth, the OSB is a 'study' bible, not a theological text, and is intended for laymen, not scholars, nor for scholar wannabes who would rather talk in ignorance about Palamite theology than learn the 12 feasts of the Church. Sorry if I sound abrupt, but after 8 years of whining from those who refused to participate in crafting it, I can't see a single reason to give them the time of day about this.

No Bible is perfect, even in the original languages (now there is a statement!), but is it useful?

No sense discussing it unless you've read it.

mwbonline:

Do you know what it costs to do a thorough translation of a work of any kind? If I'm not mistaken, the Catholic bishops spent about a million dollars to get the NAB translated. It cost them about that same amount to get a translation of our principle service book--the Missal--translated and then Rome refused permission to use it citing many defects in the translation.

I'm sure that the cost of having Orthodox scholars sit down and do a translation of the entire collected Bible was one reason up to this date.

Remember, you need someone who has spent the time becoming a Biblical scholar, together with having the theological credentials and language skills in several different languages. Finding that person or persons and supporting them for the years it takes to translate the books is not done on the cheap. And it isn't the same as taking a text in an elementary language class and sitting down to translate. There is a lot of complexity in choosing the right word to translate the words in the original. There are two schools of theought that I have read of that conflict in translation: the one that sticks closely to the original even when it does not "flow" in the translator's language; the other that seeks for a "dynamic equivalence" that can be a product of the translator's bias. Then there is the area of consistency--some whould mix the methods. In any event, it isn't easy.

IMHO, I collect them all and compare to help my own understanding of what is said. But in all things, my first question is, "What does the Church teach about this?" That's my question about Scripture and everything else.

BOB

John the Rsv version is the one I prefer. And they do contain 4 Macc.
Perhaps maybe the Orthodox and Catholic Church should come together and try to decide just what the Canon consists of.
he Canon has been set somewhat since 396 in the West among the Catholics and later confirmed at other councils.
But it did not exclude the possibility that in the futre the Canon might be expanded to include what the Orthodox consider canonical. Which I would tend to support myself.
Stephanos I