www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Scripture and Patristic Writings Greek Orthodox and KJV & NKJV Readings

Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

I was wondering why the Greek Orthodox in America chooses the KJV & NKJV New Testament for their scripture readings ? Can somebody shed some light on this?

Peace in Our Lord Jesus Christ

If you are speaking specifically of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese, I do not think that they standardized on either the KJV or NKJV, although I'm sure some, if not many of them, use it. Generally, Orthodox Christians in this country seem to prefer either the KJV (and NKJV) or the RSV. (The NRSV is highly problematic, although I've seen it in some Greek Orthodox Archdiocese publications. However, it's been officially banned by the Orthodox Church in America.)

Regarding the KJV and NKJV, they are advantageous to the Orthodox because the NT text is tranlsated from the Greek Textus Receptus, which is close to the Byzantine Text, which is pretty much the "official" Orthodox text of the NT.

However, none of these versions use the Septuagint as their basis of the Old Testament, so right now there is no acceptable English translation of the entire OT. Several translations are set to be released by 2005, which will be a tremendous step forward for English speaking Orthodox Christians.

There is no official English text of the bible for English speaking Orthodox Christians.

Hope this helps.

Priest Thomas Soroka
St. Nicholas Orthodox Church
McKees Rocks, PA
http://www.stnicholas-oca.org

See the thread entitled " Which translation? " for more information on this topic.

Dear Friends,

To quote from a Southern Baptist I met last week, "if the KJV was good enough for St Paul . . ."

Metropolitan Ilarion Ohienko did a great Bible translation in flowing modern Ukrainian and it is not only the official text of the Ukrainian Orthodox, but also, happily, of all Ukrainian Protestants.

Ukrainian Protestants even held a prayer service at the Metropolitan's gravesite in Winnipeg as a way to thank him for his 20-year effort.

I understand the Ukie Catholics are thinking of using a slightly modified version of his translation.

The Orthodox are also working on developing the complete Old Testament Canon since the Bible Societies that first published his Bible left out the Deuterocanonical books.

Alex

Thank you and bless you Fr.Thomas for your response. I just happened to visit another site and found some information which is similar to yours.

Peace to All in Our Lord Jesus Christ

Forgive me, but a few minutes ago Fr. Thomas was the only respondent, and while I was chicken pecking my response to him the lightning round guys responded.I am impressed.

Peace in Our Lord Jesus Christ

Dear Friends,

But failing to have an approved Orthodox English translation of the Scriptures, what would be the generally recommended "next best thing?"

Just wondering . . .

Alex

It's a problem. Many people go with the old "Oxford Annotated RSV with Apocrypha" because it contains all the Orthodox books of the OT. The translation is readable and mostly reliable. The problem is that, in the case of the OT, it's largely based on the Hebrew (Masoretic) text, and in the case of the NT, it's based on a critical rendering of the NT, and not the Byzantine text. In the case of the NT, the differences are not so great, but there are certain passages or words that are different or missing.

I've moved my parish to the NKJV because it is based on the Textus Receptus (close to the Byzantine text type) and because they will soon publish a translation of the Septuagint (Greek) version of the OT, which of course will contain all of the books accepted by the Orthodox Church. For now, liturgically, we do not read from the NKJV OT, but use approved texts by the OCA. But once it is published and approved, we will move to it.

Someone has told me that the Carpatho Russian Diocese uses the NAB. This bible would have almost all of the Orthodox books (if not all of them, I don't own one) but I believe the OT would still be based on the Masoretic text.

Priest Thomas

Fr. Thomas is correct about the Carpatho-Russian Diocese mostly using the NAB translation. I suspect this is because they use the same Ruthenian Recension as does the Byzantine Catholic Church (Ruthenian) which has published a Gospel Book and an Apostol (containing the New and Old Testament readings apart from the Gospels) based upon the NAB. A further support would be that the Carpatho-Russian Diocese uses modern American English whereas most of the rest of Orthodoxy uses Elizabethan English in Divine Worship (but that is another thread).

Most of the Byzantine Catholic parishes I am acquainted with use the Orthodox Study Bible for religious education (which is NKJV). They do so not for the text itself but for the study notes since they reflect our Byzantine Christian approach towards the Holy Scriptures (and thus contain many teachings of the Church Fathers). [I really wish that the editors of the Orthodox Study Bible had chosen the RSV or NAB texts!]

Most of my friends (Orthodox and Byzantine Catholic) tend to use the RSV-CE for personal reading and study and the Orthodox Study Bible for the footnotes. I like the RSV-CE for readability but since I was raised with the original NAB I tend to primarily use that text.

Bless me a sinner, Reverend Father!

Thank you for your comprehensive and always helpful responses!

(Thank you too, Reverend Cantor/Administrator!)

As for the full Orthodox Old Testament text, I am somewhat confused.

Some editions that give the full Deuterocanonical texts differentiate between the "Russian" and "Greek" Orthodox Old Testament canons.

They invariably include the Fourth Book of the Maccabees, but say that while the Greeks don't consider it "inspired" it is still a part of Scripture (?).

There is also a point made that there is no uniformity with respect to the Old Testament Canon of the Orthodox Bible.

Can you help this poor Uniate out? (Just so you know, it isn't entirely my "fault" that I am a Uniate - I was born such!)

Kissing your right hand, I again implore your blessing,

Alex

May the Lord God bless you!

Yes, there are certain discrepancies regarding the canon of scripture, and then a disctinction is made by some, but not all Fathers as to the footing of the duterocanonical books. So, it's easy to be confused, because there is not agreement about what is in, out, inspired, lesser inspired, or what.

Generally speaking, the books in dispute are 4 Maccabees, which the Russian bibles do not include at all (generally) while the Greeks include it but do not necessarily give it full "scriptural" status, and 2 Esdras (which the Russian bibles include as 2 and 3 Esdras) which the Greeks do not include (generally). There may be something else I'm missing here.

Of course, there was for many hundreds of years divergent opinion about the New Testament also. The Book of Revelation was not widely accepted in the East until very late - even as late as the fifth century in some places. Many Fathers cited the "Revelation of Peter" as canonical NT prophetic scripture, but not John's Revelation. Today, of course, there is no dispute. Although, we should also acknowledge that some of our major feast days are gleaned from NT "apocryphal" literature. The conclusion for us is that this is not a bad thing. For a Protestant, it's akin to heresy, I suppose.

So we might say that these minor discrepancies in the OT canon in the east is not a major issue, since both Esdras and Maccabees are history books. Their uneven status between the churches is to be expected, given the various lists of canonical scriptures among the Fathers. Of course, a nice pan-Orthodox ecumenical council might clear that up! But I don't think that the list of canonical OT scripture would make the top ten list!

Sorry I can't be more specific, but I think that this issue is a typically eastern one, and shouldn't rattle us too much.

Priest Thomas Soroka

Bless me a sinner, Father Thomas!

Thank you for your erudite and concise explanations!

The Ethiopian Church to this day adds the Books of Jubilees and of Enoch to its "narrow" Old Testament Canon and also includes the eight books of the Apostolic Constitutions to its New Testament.

The ancient Celtic Church considered the Shepherd of Hermas and the Apostles' Creed to be scripture and the Assyrians likewise had their canon.

First and Second Clement were added to the Latin Vulgata until recently as well.

But you made mention of the very interesting point concerning other, perfectly Orthodox books, such as the Gospel of Nicodemus and others from which the Church took information that formed its liturgical prayer and feasts e.g. the Feast of the Entrance into the Temple of the Mother of God and others.

Did the Church consider that these deuterocanonical books, on which it based a solid portion of its liturgical patrimony, to be "inspired" in some way - or not?

Kissing your right hand, I again implore your blessing,

Alex

The Church - not inspired, but helpful. However, certain Fathers at that particular time did consider some of these books to be inspired scripture. If I can find an article on who considered what to be canonical, I'll post it. It's fascinating reading.

Alex, one blessing per day, please! To Quote the Emporer Joseph the II in "Amadeus," "Please, no, no! It's not a holy relic!"

Priest Thomas

Dear Fr. Thomas,

O.K., but I didn't think you actually had to wave your hand each time I asked for your blessing over the computer!

If I lived in your community, I daresay you would have "pulled me over" to the OCA long ago!

As for the "Ukrainian cultural content" issue, having a pastor with a name like "Fr. Soroka" would have satisfied even my most nationalistic uncles!!

Alex

Just a follow up to my message about the OT and NT canon, there is a very good article in the Jerome Biblical Commentary, near the back on the canon of scripture. When I get a chance, I'll post info from it. I was re-reading it today and was amazed to read that the Second Council of Trullo (692?) still had listed several books that are not canonical scripture today, and did not list a few that are. The whole history of the canon of scripture turns biblical fundamentalism on its head, I think.

Anyway, just thought I'd pass that along.

Priest Thomas