Orthodox Study Bible

[Alex Haig]

I came across this page via another Orthodox newsgroup:

http://www.anastasis.org.uk/bible_review.htm

Has anyone here come across it too? Has anything been done to address Fr Ephrem's points? What about the new translation of the Old Testament to be published later this year? Anyone have any further comments?

Wishing you all a joyous Holy Week and Pascha
With love in Christ

Alex

[Anestis Jordanoglou]

Dear Alex,

Take it from me, an American citizen who deals with evangelicals all the time, the vituperative and angry tone of the review sounds a lot more like the railing self-righteous evangelicals we have here than anything that could've possibly been written in that Bible.

[Anthony]

I don't possess this study bible, but I would put my money on Fr Ephrem's good judgement. The points he makes are serious ones, and if any of them are wrong somebody can answer them. I don't see where anger and self-righteousness come into this.

Anthony

[garry horne]

I have a copy of this Bible and make use of it each day in my devotionals. I also use other translations.
This Bible helps me,I am a convert,as the study notes teach Orthodoxy. My Priest advises this Bible and copies are always available in the Church bookstore.
It seems to me that alot of it's failings were brought to light but not a whole lot of the good things about it in the article.
I have read and reread a good number of books on Orthodoxy and nothing I recall reading has cast this Bible into a bad light.It would be nice to know if a response to this criticism was ever made (by those who did this work) and if so I would like to read it.

[Elias Young]

Another review of the OSBible...

*******

Review of the Orthodox Study Bible
by Priest Seraphim Johnson

The Orthodox Study Bible (Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, 1993) makes a very good initial impression. The bindings are handsome, the Bible is nicely printed, and it is graced by a number of full-color icons scattered through the book. It uses the increasingly popular New King James Version (NKJV) for the text. On the whole this version is an acceptable modernization of the King James Version (KJV), while retaining some of the literary quality of the latter. An additional advantage of the NKJV is that it indicates the Majority Text readings, since these generally correspond even more fully to the Church's text than do the KJV readings. However, it is disappointing that the Study Bible reproduces the whole textual apparatus of the NKJV, including many of the doubtful decisions of modern non-Orthodox biblical scholarship; it would have been preferable for them to have corrected the text to agree with that of the Church and then to present only that text, since the whole matter of textual criticism is complex and primarily serves to cause doubts and questions in the minds of non-technical readers of the Scriptures. While the NKJV is a generally acceptable text for the New Testament, its use for the Psalter is completely unacceptable. It is very unfortunate that the Study Bible uses a Protestant version of the Psalter in what claims to be a Bible for Orthodox Christians, following even the Protestant numbering of the psalms, rather than that of the Church. Several translations of the psalms from the Orthodox Church's Septuagint version into English have appeared in the last 20 years, and it surely would have been possible for the publishers to have arranged to use one of these if they truly wanted to offer an Orthodox text of the Bible to their readers.

When one actually starts to read the comments and notes attached to the Study Bible one quickly becomes very disappointed to see that a major opportunity has been lost. The comments on the text are on the whole quite simplistic and shallow, often doing nothing more than paraphrasing the verse to which they refer. Only very rarely do they quote from the Fathers to draw out the fuller meaning of the text, although a good collection of such quotations would have been the best possible Orthodox commentary on the Scriptures.

The early Church understood that the doctrines of the faith (viewed as facts and rational propositions) could not really be grasped until a person had attained some degree of moral purity. This is the reason for the extended catechumenate, during which the candidate had to reform his life and bring it into line with the Church's demands. Only near the end of this period was the content of the Faith presented, when the candidate was sufficiently purified to be able to receive it and make sense of it. To have presented it earlier would have reduced it to only empty factual knowledge with no meaning for one's life. One of the most unfortunate features of the Study Bible is that it confines itself only to this factual knowledge and does not even use those passages of Scripture which have a moral content to inculcate such purity in its readers. It rarely draws any but the most trite moral conclusions from the texts, while the Fathers consistently apply them primarily in a moral way, rather than as historical or factual artifacts.

As one reads the notes to the text, a false, non-Orthodox tone becomes uncomfortably apparent. The editors constantly refer to the way things are done in the "Orthodox Church," the teaching of the "Orthodox Church," etc. By always qualifying "Church" in this way, they distance themselves and write as they are outsiders or as if they are writing for outsiders. When Orthodox people describe the services, readings, practices, and doctrines of the Church, they just call it the "Church." Similarly, if you look at a Roman Catholic Bible (e.g. the Jerusalem Bible), it refers to the "Church's teaching" or says that "the Church reads this passage..." and so on. The only reason to qualify "Church" all the time, as the Study Bible does, is to distinguish it from other religious bodies. But the result of this constant qualification is that the reader does not feel he is reading a Bible prepared by Orthodox Christians for Orthodox Christians. The feeling is rather that this Bible is designed to introduce the non-Orthodox to Orthodoxy, or else that non-Orthodox wrote the notes in it. There is not anything inherently wrong in the idea of writing notes on a Bible to help convince non-Orthodox of the truth of Orthodoxy (assuming the notes accurately reflect the true views and positions of Orthodoxy, which is by no means always the case in the Study Bible), but it would be better to advertise the Bible as such, perhaps calling it the Orthodox Evangelism Bible, rather than to present it as if it is designed to help Orthodox Christians grow deeper in their understanding and practice of the faith.

Another example of the non-Orthodox tone of much of the commentary in the Study Bible is the way the Savior and the Saints are referred to. While there are instances in which Orthodox refer to the Lord as simply "Jesus," they are rare. Especially in the early Church (cf. St. Ignatius of Antioch's letters), the Lord is almost always referred to by His name and one or more titles (e.g., "Jesus Christ," "our Lord Jesus Christ," etc.). Even St. Paul usually refers to Him in this way. The Gospels do not, since they are presenting history, rather than reflections drawn from that history. But Orthodox Christians do not speak of the Lord in this unadorned way, so it strikes a false note to find the Study Bible referring to Him as "Jesus" most of the time. Similarly, in English (although less so in Greek or Russian) it sounds very odd to Orthodox ears to refer to the saints without using their title. Thus, Orthodox Christians usually speak of "St. Paul," not of "Paul." The same may be said about the note concerning the Theotokos on page 135. The editors address her as "Mary." Again, this is a small point, but it does offend Orthodox ears and adds to the feeling the authors of the notes in the Study Bible are not writing from within the Orthodox community, but rather are outsiders trying to interpret an Orthodoxy they only understand theoretically, but which they have not yet learned really to live.

A further example of the editors' viewpoint being from outside the Church is their decision to abbreviate the Morning and Evening Prayers printed in the back of the Study Bible by leaving out any prayers to the Theotokos or the saints. It seems almost inconceivable that Orthodox Christians would not at least include the Prayer "O Theotokos and Virgin, rejoice" and a prayer to their patron saint as part of their daily prayers; but these prayers are missing. While this omission undoubtedly will make the Study Bible more congenial to Protestant readers, it seriously distorts the actual teaching and practice of the Orthodox Church.

Throughout the Study Bible there is a surprising emphasis on the concept of "justification," including a whole article devoted to this topic in Romans 5. A number of notes scattered throughout the Study Bible refer to "justification," usually specifying that it is "by faith" (e.g. Mark 10:28; Acts 10:35; Romans 3:20, 5: 1; Galatians 2:16-4:31, 2:17; etc.). The article and notes are not particularly offensive, but the concept and term "justification" play almost no role in Orthodox theology, where "justification" is commonly not even distinguished from "sanctification," but both are seen as a united and inseparable part of the Christian's process of spiritual development. Certainly, its role is minor compared to the major position it occupies in Protestant thinking. Thus, the index to Timothy [now Bishop Kallistos] Ware's The Orthodox Church does not include the term, nor is it found in a number of Orthodox theological dictionaries (e.g., Polny Pravoslavnyy Bogoslovskiy Entsiklopicheskiy Slovar [Complete Orthodox Theological Encyclopedic Dictionary], reprinted in Russia in 1992 from a pre-Revolutionary edition; Dictionary of Orthodox Theology, George H. Demetrakopoulos, New York, 1964). Once again, while the treatment is not "wrong" from an Orthodox standpoint, the very discussion and term sound strange to Orthodox ears.

There are other notes in which a non-Orthodox viewpoint comes across. Examples are:

a) The note on Acts 3:1 refers to "Advent," which is a term and period which does not exist in Orthodoxy. In the Western liturgical churches (Roman Catholic, Anglican, and Lutheran) "Advent" is the name given to the four Sundays preceding Christmas. Orthodoxy does not observe these Sundays, but it does have a six-week fast preceding the feast of the Nativity of Our Lord.

b) Mark 2:20. This note defends fasting, but from a rather Protestant viewpoint. It is written to persuade Protestant readers that fasting is acceptable for a Christian, not to encourage Orthodox to discover the spiritual benefits of fasting.

c) The note on "fasting" in the glossary (p. 798) mis-defines the Apostles Fast, incorrectly saying that it is the two weeks before June 29. This fast is actually of variable length, starting on the Monday after All Saints Sunday and continuing until the Feast of Sts. Peter and Paul. The fact that the author of the notes does not know how long the fast lasts can only raise doubts about the extent to which the Faith is being lived.

Finally, there are notes which are simply unacceptable to any true Orthodox Christian, since they are omissions or distortions of vital Orthodox teachings.

a) Matthew 14:14-2 1. In discussing the feeding of the five thousand, the editors somewhat grudgingly say that the feeding of the four thousand (reported in Matthew 15:32-39) "...is PROBABLY not a duplicate report of the first miracle." Thereby, the editors are challenging the authenticity and reliability of the Gospels, since the same Gospel reports the two miracles separately and since the Lord Himself refers to both of them as separate events (Matthew 16:9-10). To raise even a question about whether these are separate events is to call into question the Lord's veracity and the reliability of the Gospels—surely not an Orthodox attitude toward either.

b) Mark 9:38-40. The note says, "Sectarianism and triumphalism (the attitude that one creed is superior to all others) are forbidden, for God's working transcends our limited perceptions. One is either for or against (v.40) Christ, but it is not always ours to know who is on which side." Does this mean that the creed of the First and Second Ecumenical Councils (the Symbol of Faith) is no better than any other creed (e.g., the Lutherans' Augsburg Confession)? Any Orthodox Christian who does not think that the Church's creed is superior to all others places himself outside the Church. Furthermore, while we may not always know where a person's heart is, we can see that those who willfully promulgate false creeds are working against our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. The attitude in this note is simply foreign to any healthy Orthodox Christian.

c) Mark 10:30. The Lord promises that those who give up family and possessions will receive them back a hundredfold, but the note calls this into question, saying that this is "not an absolute promise: countless saints and martyrs were not so rewarded." Here the authors betray their carnal viewpoint. The Fathers apply this passage to the whole Christian community, saying that those who give up earthly family and possessions receive new fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, homes and lands in the CHURCH, but not in the carnal sense of getting more personal possessions. It is bad enough that the authors' viewpoint is carnal, their error is compounded by the fact that they openly disagree with the Lord and question the accuracy of His promise.

d) Acts 13:3. The note supports multiple ordination. This practice has been forbidden in the Orthodox Church for many centuries, so there is no reason whatsoever to mention it, unless it is to justify the extreme irregularity of performing such ordinations when the so-called "Evangelical Orthodox" were received into the Antiochian Church.

e) I Timothy 2:12. By citing Romans 16:1 to suggest that women have been ordained as deacons and by stating that "women are not ordained to the offices of bishop and presbyter in the Orthodox Church," the note implies that women can be ordained deacons. This is not the case. The order of deaconesses is not currently in use in the Church, and in any case the Church does not treat the order of deaconesses as equivalent to that of deacons, since the former do not perform the deacon's liturgical functions.

f) II Timothy 1:9. The note says, "Our salvation and CALLING are based on His GRACE and love, not on anything we have done to merit God's favor." The Orthodox viewpoint is that our salvation does in fact depend on our response to God's grace and how we use it in our lives. We are co-workers with God in our salvation, as St. Paul says (I Cor. 3:9; II Cor. 6: 1; Phil. 2:12-13). Even our calling as Christians is based on our synergy in responding to God's grace in our lives, since we are all sustained by His grace in every breath we take. Those who respond to this grace receive a calling to participate more fully in it, a calling which is based on their earlier responses.

g) The note on I Peter 3:18 glosses over the Lord's descent into Hades. You may be able to find this doctrine in the note if you know it is supposed to be there, but it certainly is not presented in a clear and unambiguous way. And yet, this is the focus of the primary icons of the feast of the Resurrection, so how can it be skimmed over with no more than a hint in what claims to be an "Orthodox Bible?"

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, especially since several more reliable "Orthodox Study" Bible commentaries are available in English for Orthodox readers (e.g. Johanna Manley's "The Bible and the Holy Fathers" her "Grace for Grace: The Psalter and the Holy Fathers" (which has the added advantage of using the Orthodox Psalter as its basic text, rather than the Protestant one); and the ongoing translation of Blessed Theophylact's commentaries on the Gospels.

From The Orthodox Christian Witness, Vol. XXVII, No. 18(1273)

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/review_osb2.aspx?print=ok

[Herman Blaydoe]

Fr. Ephrem brings up some valid points. No book is going to be "perfect." There is always room for improvement, and there will be differing pious opinions on various subjects. The OSB was a compromise and joint effort, trying to do many different things. It meets those differing purposes to differing degrees, but I think it was a very good first attempt. If others don't agree, or feel they might have done a better job, who am I to argue? Hey at least it is SOMETHING, even if it is not perfect. I carry my OSB with me most of the time, I use it quite a bit, but it is NOT my only reference. I also have an Oxford RSV with Apocrypha and the Holy Apostles Convent corrected and annotated New Testament which has extensive references direct from the writings of the Fathers of the Church. It is very handy but I find it awkward to use, since all the footnotes are at the end of each book instead of on the page in question like with the OSB. The other review at Orthodoxinfo really needs to be viewed in context. This particular website considers the Ecumenical Patriarch and all associated with him to be apostate, and fosters a very rigorous "pure" Orthodoxy as opposed (in their minds) with "world" Orthodoxy which they feel has become corrupted. They therefore take great pains to find fault and, to be fair, I think that some of the criticisms are rather overblown and nit-picks.

[Olga]

I'm inclined to agree, Herman B. While I have found articles available at orthodoxinfo useful, I try to disregard the more "sectarian" comments and overtones. For instance, in their article on Sophianism (the feminisation of God), the writer wastes no time in bucketing anything to do with the Moscow Patriarchate, and also claims in the footnotes that the Brotherhood of St Herman at Platina no longer exists...!! (Hmmm. So who has been publishing the St H Calendar all these years?)http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/wink.gif

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I have never met the webmaster of the orthodoxinfo site but I have spoken over the past few years with those who know the webmaster personally - including his mother who attends St Isaac of Syria Skete- (Bulgarian Patriarchate) as a lay parishioner. Certainly the present views of the webmaster are not that the Patriarch of Constantinople is an apostate or that the St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood does not exist.
Certainly the perspective of the website is traditional in the sense of being openly anti-ecumenical and supports a Patristic/ monastic vision of Orthodoxy (as if there is another vision of Orthodoxy). But many or most of the present articles are by people within SCOBA including the Patriarchate of Constantinople (such as the recent symposium on ecumenism). The webmaster's book on the non-Orthodox was printed by a publisher associated with Constaninople & Antioch.
Several of the articles on the webiste(such as this one by Fr Seraphim Rose (http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/fsr_63.aspx) now stress the dangers of what Fr Seraphim called "super-correctness." Some of these articles were originally published by the St Herman of Alaska Brotherhood & also there is a very recent display of photos on the website of the webmaster visiting the monastery near Platina- so it would be a surprise to learn that the there was anything fundamentally critical of the Brotherhood here.
What this reflects I think is how Orthodoxy has changed in the last ten years or so. It used to be that there were two diametrically opposed worlds within Orthodoxy- but this has changed tremendously. Now it is more likely that the discussion/debate over the proper way in which Orthodoxy should be lived within the present day world will take place as much within each jurisdiction instead of between jurisdictions. I would say that this is a positive change within world Orthodoxy; and I would also say that the orthodoxinfo website also reflects this positive change.
In the Risen Christ- Fr Raphael

[George Hawkins]

Personally I prefer the Orthodox New Testament. It's heavy, and expensive, but well worth it - especially the commentary from the Church Fathers.

[Justin]

I use the OSB all the time, and rarely use the ONT anymore. I've read a half dozen reviews on the OSB, and while many of the points are good, many are also nit-pickey. Fwiw, from what I've heard through hearsay, the editors do seem to have taken to heart some of the criticisms made of the OSB as they've worked on the Old Testament--but being realistic, there are only so many resoruces (intellectually, financially, etc.) that they can expend on the project, and it'd be setting yourself up for a letdown to expect an error-free and perfect Bible that pleases everyone. Even the KJV was horribly error-filled and greatly disliked after it's initial release.


Herman,

Mr. Barnes has actually changed the tone of the site immensely over the past year or so. Interestingly, at a more rigorous forum than this one, Orthodoxinfo has been blasted over the past week for exactly this shift towards a more moderate stance. Before attacking the site again, maybe you could stop by and take note of the changes (e.g., adding new calendar commemorations and readings, taking down most of the Greek Old Calendarist content, adding content from writers of more diverse ecclesiastical persuasions, etc.)?

[Herman Blaydoe]

Admittedly, I have not spent a lot of time at Orthodoxinfo holistically examining its "tone" although I must admit I do use its resources, particularly those aimed at responding to Protestants and Catholics on a regular basis. I will note your comments for the future in as much as I have been very reluctant in the past to recommend this site to others as a resource because of its previous (I take you at your word) tone but I must say that your characterization of my post as an "attack" is a bit unfair, and I stand by my characterization of the review posted there as rather nit-picking.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Perhaps we are getting a bit confused here. The original article by Archimandrite Ephrem didn't come from the orthodoxinfo site but rather from his own site at http://www.anastasis.org.uk/bible_review.htm.
On the site's home page is explained that he is with the Patriarchate of Constantinople.
The later reference to the orthodoxinfo site actually came from someone quoting another article on the OSB this time by Fr Seraphim Johnson.

In the Risen Christ- Fr Raphael

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Actually I think that I'm the one getting confused. When I read over what was written above by Herman I see that he wrote: "The other review at Orthodoxinfo really needs to be viewed in context."
My fault.
In the Risen Christ- Fr Raphael

[John P. Nasou]

Justin, I agree fully with you regarding the nitty-pickyness of those = who have attacked the OSB. It brings to mind Christ's words He who is = without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first. The OSB is = the first scriptural book in English to provide us with notes approved = by a wide range of Orthodox theologians. The annotates RSV does not = satisfy this need. If other people have seen the need for such a = publication and failed to act upon it, then the sin is theirs. I have = found several errors in what is published on the Arimethea website, so = this is a poor source for Orthodox =

[John P. Nasou]

[Justin, I agree fully with you regarding the nitty-pickyness of those = who have attacked the OSB. It brings to mind Christ's words He who is = without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first. The OSB is = the first scriptural book in English to provide us with notes approved = by a wide range of Orthodox theologians. The annotates RSV does not = satisfy this need. If other people have seen the need for such a = publication and failed to act upon it, then the sin is theirs. I have = found several errors in what is published on the Arimethea website, so = this is a poor source for Orthodox information. I also want to thank = Father Raphael for his comments regarding the positive change in the = orthodoxinfo website. Today's situation of Orthodoxy reminds me of the = fundamentalist and orthodox protestants battling each other.

Christ is Risen!

John Nasou]

[Anthony]

Dear John,

<blockquote><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="3" class="quotetable"><tr><td><p class="qtheader">Quotation:</p><!-quote-!><p class="qtbody">I have = found several errors in what is published on the Arimethea website, so = this is a poor source for Orthodox information.</p><!-/quote-!></td></tr></table></blockquote>

Do you mean Anastasis? Either way I would be interested to see some examples of what makes it such a poor source for Orthodox information. I was under the impression that both sites were very good sources.

Anthony

[Justin]

Herman, I do apologize for my comments to you, they went too far and I was uncharitable. I need to learn to not simply post something because it comes into my mind, but to instead dwell on whether what I am thinking about is accurate. Fr. Averky told me to do this many times in email, but I guess I still haven&#39;t learned yet.

[John P. Nasou]

[Anthony - I had written an essay which I distributed to our Orthodox = group in Washington, D.C. It is quite lenghthy and I hope that it will = come through in this format:

HISTORICAL VERACITY

Is it to be expected?

=20

We all are aware that historical veracity is something = that all people try to achieve, particularly those scholars whose = endeavors are in the teaching of history. However, there are two factors = which enter into the failure to achieve this objective. The first is the = blind acceptance of information presented by prior writers, usually = great people, even some who may have been involved in the creation of = that history. The second is a lack of common knowledge on the part of a = historian, which would enable him to discern errors within the stories = he receives. Both are in constant operation and are the reasons why = history is continually being rewritten. It is sad that so few of our = children are being taught history today. The old adage that &#34;history = repeats itself&#34; is one of the greatest truths ever propounded. The = cultures of new generations continue to fall into the same old traps = because they have not had the opportunity to learn past history, or had = learned it superficially and from a prejudiced point of view. =20

This leads me to recounting something that I encountered = while researching an entirely different question. I came across an = article entitled, &#34;The Battle of the Trisagion.&#34; Naturally this caught = my attention. Apparently in the fifth century, there was a Bishop named = Peter the Fuller1 &#40;so named because his prior occupation was a &#34;fuller = of cloth&#34;, i.e. the rubbing of fuller&#39;s clay and oil into cloth to give = it a smooth appearance&#41;. This descriptive name in Greek was Gnapheos, = and in Latin Fullo. Peter was the &#34;monophysite bishop&#34; referred to in = this excerpt from:

=20

Edward Gibbon - Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire2, Chapter 47 &#40;in = the original edition&#41;

=20

In the fever of the times, the sense, or rather the sound of a = syllable, was sufficient to disturb the peace of an empire. The = Trisagion &#40;thrice holy,&#41; &#34;Holy, holy, holy, Lord God of Hosts!&#34; is = supposed, by the Greeks, to be the identical hymn which the angels and = cherubim eternally repeat before the throne of God, and which, about the = middle of the fifth century, was miraculously revealed to the church of = Constantinople. The devotion of Antioch soon added, &#34;who was crucified = for us!&#34; and this grateful address, either to Christ alone, or to the = whole Trinity, may be justified by the rules of theology, and has been = gradually adopted by the Catholics of the East and West. But it had been = imagined by a Monophysite bishop; the gift of an enemy was at first = rejected as a dire and dangerous blasphemy, and the rash innovation had = nearly cost the emperor Anastasius his throne and his life. The people = of Constantinople was devoid of any rational principles of freedom; but = they held, as a lawful cause of rebellion, the color of a livery in the = races, or the color of a mystery in the schools. The Trisagion, with and = without this obnoxious addition, was chanted in the cathedral by two = adverse choirs, and when their lungs were exhausted, they had recourse = to the more solid arguments of sticks and stones; the aggressors were = punished by the emperor, and defended by the patriarch; and the crown = and mitre were staked on the event of this momentous quarrel. The = streets were instantly crowded with innumerable swarms of men, women, = and children; the legions of monks, in regular array, marched, and = shouted, and fought at their head, &#34;Christians! this is the day of = martyrdom: let us not desert our spiritual father; anathema to the = Manichaean tyrant! he is unworthy to reign.&#34; Such was the Catholic cry; = and the galleys of Anastasius lay upon their oars before the palace, = till the patriarch had pardoned his penitent, and hushed the waves of = the troubled multitude. The triumph of Macedonius was checked by a = speedy exile; but the zeal of his flock was again exasperated by the = same question, &#34;Whether one of the Trinity had been crucified?&#34; On this = momentous occasion, the blue and green factions of Constantinople = suspended their discord, and the civil and military powers were = annihilated in their presence. The keys of the city, and the standards = of the guards, were deposited in the forum of Constantine, the principal = station and camp of the faithful. Day and night they were incessantly = busied either in singing hymns to the honor of their God, or in = pillaging and murdering the servants of their prince. The head of his = favorite monk, the friend, as they styled him, of the enemy of the Holy = Trinity, was borne aloft on a spear; and the firebrands, which had been = darted against heretical structures, diffused the undistinguishing = flames over the most orthodox buildings. The statues of the emperor were = broken, and his person was concealed in a suburb, till, at the end of = three days, he dared to implore the mercy of his subjects. Without his = diadem, and in the posture of a suppliant, Anastasius appeared on the = throne of the circus. The Catholics, before his face, rehearsed their = genuine Trisagion; they exulted in the offer, which he proclaimed by the = voice of a herald, of abdicating the purple; they listened to the = admonition, that, since all could not reign, they should previously = agree in the choice of a sovereign; and they accepted the blood of two = unpopular ministers, whom their master, without hesitation, condemned to = the lions. &#40;continued on page 2&#41;

Page 1

=20

&#40;continued from page 1 - Historical Veracity&#41;

=20

These furious but transient seditions were encouraged by the success = of Vitalian, who, with an army of Huns and Bulgarians, for the most part = idolaters, declared himself the champion of the Catholic faith. In this = pious rebellion he depopulated Thrace, besieged Constantinople, = exterminated sixty-five thousand of his fellow-Christians, till he = obtained the recall of the bishops, the satisfaction of the pope, and = the establishment of the council of Chalcedon, an orthodox treaty, = reluctantly signed by the dying Anastasius, and more faithfully = performed by the uncle of Justinian. And such was the event of the first = of the religious wars which have been waged in the name and by the = disciples, of the God of peace. =20

=20

Now, it was not so much having to do with the alteration = of the &#34;Trisagion&#34; by Antiochean clergy that Gibbon included this event = into his voluminous book which was published in 1776. Rather it was = intended to show his imagined conception of the disorder in the Eastern = Roman Empire. Edward Gibbon&#39;s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire has = enjoyed widespread popularity with the general public from the time of = its publication to this very day because of its literary value. However, = expert historians have discovered a multitude of historical inaccuracies = within it, but more than this he was found to be extremely prejudiced in = favor of the early Roman imperium, coupled with his great aversion for = the Eastern Roman Empire and Christianity, both of which he blames = partially for the fall of Rome3. The events in this account of the = revolt are also recorded in our Pedalion, including a full theological = explanation as to why it had happened4.

=20

Yet this is not what caught my eye. It was the use of the = word &#34;Trisagion&#34; and the mention of the &#34;&#40;thrice holy,&#41; &#39;Holy, holy, = holy, Lord God of Hosts!&#39; &#34; as its definition. This betrays Gibbon&#39;s = failure as a great historian, for the lack of veracity to be found in = the sources of the information for his writing is certainly demonstrated = by this error.=20

=20

The Trisagion, as any good Orthodox Christian knows, is the &#34;Holy God, = Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, have mercy on us.&#34; The hymn quoted by = Gibbon as being the Trisagion is a completely different one named &#34;The = Triumphal Hymn.&#34; Perhaps he really can&#39;t be faulted for failing to note = the difference because, as late as in the Catholic Encyclopedia = published in 1914, there is great confusion in the differentiation of = the two hymns in the western mind1. In Orthodox tradition, the Trisagion = was received as a matter of special revelation from God4; the Triumphal = Hymn has a scriptural origin. =20

=20

What was even worse, however, was that the website in = which I discovered it included a preamble to this excerpt which explains = the historical and literary reasons for it having been presented on this = website. In this preamble, the writer did not mention the error made by = Gibbon regarding the Trisagion! Perhaps it escaped his attention or it = was not considered important. Instead, he was more concerned that this = story is &#34;a warning of the dangers of adopting an over-zealous attitude = to liturgical text.&#34; Actually it was not a matter of &#34;over-zealous = attitude.&#34; The population of Constantinople was well educated in its = worship and the theology on which it was based. It did not tolerate any = changes in either, and this event demonstrates the fervor with which the = people maintained the orthodoxy of their faith. This took place in the = late fifth century and the heresy was received from Antioch. It followed = on the heels of the Nestorian heresy by their own patriarch, and now the = empire was preoccupied with concern over the resurgence of Persian power = in the east. Heresies abounded because of the crumbling strength of the = empire in the Middle East, and the people of Constantinople were merely = demonstrating their dedication to orthodoxy.=20

Sadly, these errors in Gibbon&#39;s text appear, without challenge or = explanation, in the website of an Orthodox Monastery5! =20

=20

=20

Sources: 1. The Catholic Encyclopedia, = English translation of the original French 1914 issue&#41;, on the internet.

2. The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Edward Gibbon, abridged = by Frank Bourne, pp. 658-659, 1963,=20

Dell Publ. Co., NY &#40;note: This passage was identical in the abridged = version, the original and in the excerpt on the website.&#41;

3. The Development of Civilization, = Harold J. Carroll, Jr. et al, 1961, Scott, Foresman & Co. , Glenview, = Illinois

4. The Rudder &#40;Pedalion&#41;, Sts. Nikodemus & Agapius, Canon LXXXI, of = The 102 Canons, ppg. 385-387 = &#40;originally in Greek 1793&#41;, English = language version 1957

5. Anastasis website of St. Andrew&#39;s Monastery - = http://www.anastasis.org.uk/Gibbon_Trisagion.htm

=20

=20

=A9 John P. Nasou, M.D., November 30, 2003

Page 2

]

[Anthony]

Thank you, John, for your reply. Yes, this is a strange oversight, and in fact I don&#39;t &#34;get&#34; the inclusion of this Gibbon extract. So I think your point is well taken, but I don&#39;t think I personally would go on to say that this rather peripheral item undermines the value of the whole website.


Anthony

[Kosmas Damianides]

I can understand that sometimes we have to avoid being pedantic and perfectionists, but being what we Greeks call Tsapatsoulides is a worse sin because God doesn&#39;t like unfinished or disorganised or careless work. The Orthodox Study Bible is evidently a Tsapatsouli job.

What does this mean? It means that we Orthodox have to try harder and give more care in order to get it right. It&#39;s no use pointing the finger at others.

God Bless
ICXC
NIKA

[Anthony]

I think I should clarify that my problem is not to do with the OSB &#40;which I haven&#39;t read&#41;, but I am surprised at some reactions on this thread to what is after all a review. It is natural that a potentially important book should be reviewed in an Orthodox periodical, and it is expected of a reviewer to speak his mind. Writing a review, even a critical one &#40;which this certainly is&#41;, is not normally taken as a claim to be more righteous than others or that the reviewer could have written a better book. When I say &#34;normally&#34;, I mean that I have never encountered this kind of assumption in any other field I have been involved in. So I am surprised to see a question about the points made in the review result in so many hasty accusations against the reviewer, based apparently on this &#40;in my opinion&#41; misunderstanding.

I would just add that some of my earlier postings now seem a bit abrupt, for which I apologize.

I would be interested to know if anybody has information relating to Alex&#39; question about upcoming publications, as like many people I could certainly do with some good study material.

Anthony

[Peter Estherson]

Does anyone know if the forthcoming Orthodox Study Bible will include both Old and New Testaments in a single volume?

Thanks.

[Matthew Panchisin]

Welcome Peter,

I think that Matthew Steenberg may know if it is a single volume.

Check out his personal page it appears the Old Testament has already been completed. It would be nice if more Patristic references could be added to the footnotes section or large footnote book to expand on Holy Writ from an Orthodox perspective. The endeavor really provides and excellent opportunity for such a presentation.

http://monachos.net/mcsteenberg/academic.shtml

[Norman]

Just an FYI,

I just received the following information from Fr. Jack Sparks &#40;Dean of St. Athanasius Academy&#41; on the availability of the new Orthodox Study Bible &#40;see www.lxx.org (http://www.lxx.org)&#41;:

&#34;The Orthodox Study Bible Old and New Testaments will not be available until a year from now. The translation and all the notes are done &#40;including improved New Testament notes&#41;, but there is yet some &#39;editorial smoothing&#39; to be done on the very last section of the Old Testament. All the rest is now with the publisher! We expect publication by late summer or early fall of 2006.&#34;