Orthodox Study Bible

I agree that if this volume encourages *anyone* to read the Bible, it is a great thing. Nevertheless, I have seen some inconsistencies in the translation and notes that made the project fall short of my hopes. I\'m sure that this OSB is a good learning experience, and the Orthodox can put some more thinking into the Bible and its place in the Church. Including substantive references to the fathers, while making it accessible to a broad audience, is a great challenge for this work and for the next edition.

I think this is a good point, Kerygma. Reading the Bible is supposed to allow us to know God better, know our own sin better, and remind us of our need for mercy. This is the bottom line for me any time I read the Bible. At the same time, I can do this by getting a free Bible from the Gideons with no notes, and donating $50 to the poor, can\'t I? I think the question about the OSB is what does it do that justifies a hefty price tag. Finally, I think that both the production side and the consumer side of the OSB need to be considered. Anyone with a grammar and dictionary can translate the Bible so that someone who doesn\'t know Greek won\'t know the difference. I think the producers of the Bible need to be sure that they are doing a top-notch job for the sake of the people who *won\'t* know the difference; it\'s a matter of integrity. (I\'m not saying that the OSB doesn\'t have integrity. I just want to say that this is a necessary consideration in producing a study Bible & translation.) Because I believe that reading and understanding the Bible is key to becoming a \\"more loving, caring, tolerant, patient person,\\" I think that one should stop at nothing to be sure that the consumers of this version of the Bible can be sure that they have in their hands a top-notch work of translation and commentary. At least until they learn Greek and Hebrew :)

My problems with the OSB began in the introduction. PageXXVII - 27. Calling the cradell Orthodox who brought the faith to the shores of the U.S as \\"comitted immigrants\\" ? Ignorent , uneducated worshiping out of superstition as apposed to being \\" Saved / Orthodox . And refering to Converts , which I am one as \\" Contemporary Orthodox\\" meaning converts from protestentism. ergo are you saved has been changed into are you Orthodox. If it werent for the cradel Orthodox that I met I would know nothing. Elias

I don\'t view the criticism as whining. The points brought up are valid ones - and need to be addressed in future revisions. I am largely unaffected by the marketing antics of those who hawk their wares. There\'s no doubt that the OSB was targeted at a specific group of buyers. I hope that the discussion on this thread would help some folks make a wise decision about whether or not it\'s worth the money to buy a copy or to wait for who-knows-how-long for a revision to be made. (That said, my \'pre-purchased\' copy hasn\'t arrived yet, and I doubt that I will be sorry that I spent the money on it.)

@ Kerygma I see a difference between whining and criticism. Whining is limited to \\"I\'m not getting what I want.\\" Criticism is constructive. Criticism recognizes strengths while not glossing over weaknesses. I think a forum like this is a great place for people to express weaknesses in the OSB, with the idea in mind that the OSB II will be an even better product. At the same time, we can express here honestly the strengths that we see in the OSB that can be built upon in the next edition. I agree with you that it is good that so many men and women dedicated themselves to many years in producing this new version of the biblical text with notes. I also applaud the connections being made between the Scripture and Orthodox tradition, via the notes and cross-references to liturgical texts. At the same time, I see that on the scholarly side, more needs to be done. The Oxford \\"New English Translation of the Septuagint\\" does a superior job in selecting its Greek text and in translating consistently. The next edition should harness more Septuagint experts in translating and editing. Personally, I found that some of the notes are inconsistent--some vague, some questionable, some spot-on. Maybe in the future there will be a way of uniting the notes more tightly thematically. Also, if there is any way to add better cross-references to the patristic texts cited, I would be grateful. The net effect on me personally is that I\'m going to pass on this edition of the OSB. I\'ll stick with my old RSV and NKJV with minimal notes. For patristic references, I will continue to use the Ancient Christian Commentary series by Intervarsity Press. (Note that there are Orthodox scholars working on the latter series.)

I was at a retreat once which was led by Archbishop Demetrios, a noted scholar and well respected in Biblical Studies... especially the Old Testament. He made it clear that although the disciples were not all employed in scholarly professions, they were well versed in the OT enough to recognize who Jesus was, enough so to leave every thing and one behind. To say they were unlearned would imply they were irresponsible or careless. They may have not learned Economics but they definitely knew Judaism.

\\"Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men...\\" Book of Acts, Chapter 4, verse 13

...hmm, the rest of my post got cut off. To the above, I aslo added...if you notice, immediately following this statement, it says that the leaders of the Jews recognized that they had been with Jesus. I think it\'s incorrect to say they knew even Judaism enough to know who Christ was, since he had to reveal himself to them, even after his resurrection, \\"in the breaking of the bread.\\" But, these ignorant and unlearned mean learned to properly interpret the Old Testament scriptures, precisely because they knew Christ, and understood the entire history of their people because they believed in Jesus and saw Him as the fulfillment of all the promises. I don\'t know if we\'re saying the same thing different ways, but they WERE ignorant and unlearned men, at least, in the eyes of the world. And thus, it is that the foolishness of God is wiser than the wisdom of men, and that the ignorant, unlearned, and the women (who could not be legal witnesses in Jewish OR Roman law) testified to the truth of Him who conquered death and brought life to the world.

Whether they were unlearned or not, by the time they had witnessed the things they wrote about, they REALLY knew what they were doing.

Here is my understanding of this verse. \\"Unlearned\\" is a translation of the word \\"agrammatoi.\\" I think this is the opposite of the similar Greek word, \\"grammateis,\\" meaning \\"scribes.\\" The word translated as \\"ignorant,\\" represents the Greek, \\"idioi,\\" meaning, \\"ordinary; individual.\\" (This same word appears in 1 Cor 14:23 and is translated as, \\"outsider.\\") This is the opposite of a chief or a priest. In other words, Peter and John are *not* scribes and priests, the main enemies of Jesus. Hence the people were able to recognized them as \\"companions of Jesus.\\" Because of the nuances of the Greek, I would agree with the view that Peter and John knew plenty. Their ignorance is not being emphasized, but their distinction from the scribes and priests who rejected Jesus publicly. I think this also shows how a close reading of the Greek can produce a different reading than reading the English translation alone. The roles of the translator and commentator are of utmost importance, as he or she has a duty to convey these nuances to those who do not know the original language(s).

I believe we can be confident in understanding that what is meant to be conveyed by the phrase \\"perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men\\" was that Peter and Paul were not formally schooled in the \\"higher learning\\" of the day, but that their bold confident knowledge was founded in their instruction from and association with the Lord Jesus, (leaving aside the empowerment of the Holy Ghost). It wasn\'t per se a slur of their intellect, just the observation that they had no formal schooling, which made their able response all the more remarkable and, more importantly, attributable to the influence of the Lord Jesus.

I created another thread for the discussion of Acts 4:13.

Acts 8.31...Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch \\"How can I, unless someone guides me?\\" The scriptures are read by \\"THE CHURCH\\" and interpreted BY THE CHURCH and not by individuals. The OSB notes are a part of that but should not be seen as sufficient for an individual purpose. Rather we should all be attending Bible Studies and hosting special conferences/retreats to accomplish a more complete picture. Even any one single Church Father (even St. John Chrysostom) cannot be read in isolation of the other Fathers. If they cannot, how can the OSB notes be sufficient?

The apostles were not \\" ignorent\\" . They had to be lettered enough to read scripture when they were bar-mitzphd. But the apostles weren\'t poor. They were fisherman. If they owned their own boats and nets , they were well off. Didn\'t James and Johns father have servents ?servents ? Were they Torah scholars ? prob not but they knew the scripture from sitting in the synogoge and listening . Elias

R Grant Jones has an interesting review of the OSB on his site Notes on the Septuagint http://mysite.verizon.net/rgjones3/Septuagint/spindex.htm I was disappointed with both the notes and the text once it had finally come out. The notes are often just an obvious restating of what one has just read but there are also a lot of good notes so it is a mixed bag. Also, the text itself is also a mixed bag, sometimes following the Septuagint and sometimes the Masoretic Text as the link above shows. Without additional study materials you can't be sure when you are reading the LXX or not. I still reference my OSB occasionally but use Brentons and the KJV along with the Ancient Christian Commentary series for most of my studies.