User_22, forgive me, Sir or Ma'am, what is the point you are making?
new bible version
gphadraig wrote:User_22, forgive me, Sir or Ma'am, what is the point you are making?
http://www.anastasis.org.uk/bible_review.htm
There is a profound sense in which it is true to say that Orthodoxy takes centuries to acquire. This book is the product of people who, with the very best of intentions, are going too fast too soon.
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/review_osb2.aspx
These comments are representative of the non-Orthodox viewpoint which permeates this Study Bible and which makes it unsuited for use by Orthodox Christians. It is truly sad to see so much effort, time, and expense put into producing this Bible with such meager results in the end. It would, however, be far safer for Orthodox Christians to avoid such inaccurate and misleading aids as are provided in this Bible,
http://www.thehtm.org/osb_review.htm
The Orthodox Study Bible, as is obvious from the few representative examples, is not patristic either in conception or content, in formulation or expression, in its commentaries or addenda; indeed, it is often not only unpatristic and untraditional, but antraditional, but anti-patristic and anti-traditional. If it is not patristic, to call it Orthodox is a misnomer verging on misrepresentation.
My thanks for taking so much time. I understand well now your grave reservations and the grounds upon which you have them. This title had only recently come to my attention and did not strike a cord immediately. After reading the 'links' I will pass on it. Others too may be grateful for the information......... Again, thank you.
Schultz wrote:I was thinking this, too. I got into it with an Anglican friend of mine about this, who said that he trusted the Jews to keep their scriptural writings intact. However, when I pointed out that Jewish scholars and transcribers of the first few centuries AD may have fiddled with Scripture in order to take attention away from Christ, and that the LXX was translated before the birth of Christ, he shut up.
A quick tour through a properly annotated modern version (e.g. the RSV) in the appropriate OT books shows what the real issue in OT translation is: the text is very heavily damaged.
What we have to go on for OT translation these days is:
(a) The medieval Masoretic Text (MT)
(b) The Dead Sea Scrolls DSS
(c) The Samarian Pentateuch
(d) The Septuagint (LXX)
(e) various other ancient "translations" (e.g. the targums)
Of these, only LXX is complete in terms of the Orthodox Church texts (the rest all omit the Apocrypha). The only complete Hebrew text is the MT. IF you're committed to translating the Hebrew, the big problem is going to be "just how much change is there in the MT?" because you have to start from the MT.
It does turn out that the LXX and DSS together testify to changes which appear in the MT; it also turns out that the tripla (3 texts) shows that a lot of the differences between LXX and MT are nothing more than the mistranslations that superficial comparison reveals.
Overall, there's nothing there to support the speculation that the basis for the MT has been tampered with specifically to reduce references to Jesus. And indeed there was no real need to tamper; the Talmud is plenty pointed about Jesus.
user_22 wrote:The Orthodox Study Bible, as is obvious from the few representative examples, is not patristic either in conception or content, in formulation or expression, in its commentaries or addenda; indeed, it is often not only unpatristic and untraditional, but antraditional, but anti-patristic and anti-traditional. If it is not patristic, to call it Orthodox is a misnomer verging on misrepresentation.
As a card-carrying D.P., I would retort that the whole notion of a layperson sitting down and studying their bible alone is fundamentally Protestant, no matter whose comments accompany the text.