Bible translations

[Chad Duskin]

I am interested in finding out what translation(s) of the Bible best reflects the beliefs and traditions of the Orthodox church. Though my primary inquiry is for English translations I am also interested in what is happening in other countries.

[Razhden Guriadze]

Greetings in Christ,

I suggest for a single volume Bible the "Oxford Annotated with Apocrypha".

For Bible students I recommend The "Hebrew-Chaldee Inter-linear",Coupled with the "Greek-English Interlinear" and "Strong's Exhaustive Concordance"( I think I got that right.)

Forgive me UK, But I think the "King James" to be one of the worst.

If you compare it to the original Greek text(New Testament only.) You will find that the translators didn't like some of what was said so they rewrote it to suit themselves.

I.E. the angelic salutation to the shepherds. The original goes some thing like this "Peace on Earth. Good will towards men with whom God is well pleased." This implies to those with whom God is not well pleased something else.

The translators didn't like this thought so they wrote,"Peace on Earth. good will toward ALL men".

Don't take my word for it check it out for yourselves.

God bless and guide us all into His light,
ICXC
Razhden

[Razhden Guriadze]

OOPS! I forgot that the "Hebrew/Chaldee-English inter-linear" is what I meant.

Mea culpa.
Razhden

[Chad Duskin]

Razhden:

What English version is the Oxford Annotated? English Standard Version or Revised Standard Version? And what English version is in the Interlinear?

Chad

[M.C. Steenberg]

The Oxford Annotated Bible is NRSV, and also includes the so-called 'Apocrypha' (properly part of the Orthodox canon) in the NRSV edition. It is an excellent volume for academic study: the notes are primarily heavy cross-references and explicative comments that presume a relatively detailed knowledge of biblical history and classical thought, and the immediate accessibility of additional resources.

Another good volume is the Harper-Collins Study Bible (also NRSV), which includes notes that are somewhat more expansive and accessible. I generally recommend the Oxford volume to students taking a degree in theology and thus study the historical side in other forums, and the Harper-Collins volume to those who aren't, and thus will appreciate the broader range of notes.

Notes on the New Testament from Orthodox perspectives are found in the Orthodox Study Bible: New Testament and Psalms. This volume uses the NKJV edition of the NT and Psalms texts, and the notes are aimed at a general (i.e. non-academic) readership.

As to particular translations: overall, the NRSV (New Revised Standard Version) is the best text for Scripture study, as it is a relatively successful attempt at literal-when-possible translation. Its main 'alterations' are in personal pronouns and gender-specific Greek/Hebrew vocabulary: references to collective groups of people as 'men' in the Hebrew or Greek, when such references obviously refer to both men and women, are generally translated as 'people' -- and the NRSV translators have been quite good at noting every single instance where they made such a change, and providing the original in the marginal notes. To quell any fears: this kind of gendered-vocabulary alteration is not employed for changes in reference to God, only to collections of people. God is properly He wherever the original languages used such a term.

For those who are extensively interested in Old Testament study, the best translation of the Hebrew version still remains the NASB (New American Standard Bible), which seems to have employed better Hebrew scholars than did the NRSV: its capture and presentation of Hebrew idiom is very apt, and the text is quite vivid. The NASB New Testament, however, leaves something to be desired.

The Old Testament in the Greek (Septuagint/LXX) version suffers from lack of any good English translation at present -- the motivation for the current Orthodox Study Bible: Old Testament translation project, which should yield an Orthodox translation of the LXX sometime in 2004. A very, very inadequate English translation of the LXX without (!) the 'Apocryphal' books is that of Brenton, but this is really not a reliable volume for a whole host of reasons.

A new translation of the so-called 'Apocrypha' comes as part of the NAB (New American Bible) published by the Roman Catholic Church. Without regard to the commentary notes (which I have not read), the text of the translation is one of the best I've seen of these books.

So, if you're really gung-ho on study of Scripture: NASB for the Hebrew OT; Brenton for passable LXX OT; NAB for the 'Apocryphal' books; NRSV for NT. Or you can simply use the NRSV for everything, which is more than adequate and costs less than the whole library. http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

Translations which generally should not be used for Scriptural study include: the KJV (King James Version, also known as the Authorized Version) which, though beautiful, is based off of a bad manuscript tradition (i.e. the source Greek for the NT from which it is drawn, is not accurate), and the English it employs is antiquated to such a degree that certain phrases now have very different meanings than those that are meant in the text. The GNB (Good News Bible) should never be used for Scriptural study, as it is not a translation of the Bible, but a paraphrase or interpretation of it. It has its place if one wishes to read the editors' interpretation and re-presentation of scriptural passages, but for the actual study of Scriptural texts it is to be avoided.

Please note that I've described study volumes above, not those which are best suited for liturgical use, group reading, etc.

INXC, Matthew

[John Curtis Dunn]

Razhden Guriadze Posted on Wednesday, April 10


If you compare it to the original Greek text(New Testament only.) You will find that the translators didn't like some of what was said so they rewrote it to suit themselves. I.E. the angelic salutation to the shepherds. The original goes some thing like this "Peace on Earth. Good will towards men with whom God is well pleased." This implies to those with whom God is not well pleased something else....The translators didn't like this thought so they wrote,"Peace on Earth. good will toward ALL men". Don't take my word for it check it out for yourselves

Thank you for your input Razhden, but please re-check your source for the KJV translation of Luke 2:14. It reads, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will towards men." Perhaps many readers or even listeners insert the thought of 'all men' into the reading. It is true that these words follow the Angelic salutation to the Shepherds, but the words were not directed towards them. The preceeding verse reads "And suddenly there was with the Angel a multitude of the heavenly hosts praising God, and saying,". Verse 14 was addressed towards God, not the shepherds, yet, the Shepherds were allowed to witness the worship of the heavenly hosts. The Shepherds bear witness to the joy of the Angels who are witnesses to the Divine mystery of the Incarnation by their worship and praise.

Sts. Bede, Kyril, Leo and Gregory the Great all concur that the Angels are exultant over the Incarnation because in Christ man was elevated into the heavenly Jerusalem. St. Gregory enlightens us with this thought, "Because, through sin, we had become strangers to God, the angels, as God's subjects, cut us off from their fellowship. But since we have acknowledged our King, the angels receive us as fellow citizens."

St. Kyril wrote: "But it pleased God the Father to form into one new whole all things in Christ, and to bind together things below and things above, and to make tose in heaven and those on earth into one flock. Chris, therefore, has been made for us poth peace and good will."

However, even it 'all' were inserted it need not be understood to mean 'every individual' but rather as the Apostle Paul wrote in Romans, "to the Jew first and then to the Gentile." Or even as the Apostle John wrote in Rev. 21:24 "And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it." (note the present passive participle which would lit. reads, "the nations of those being saved,")

My point is simply that the KJV does not require a "universalist" reading. Personally I have found that the KJV offers a more accurate "English Theological language" than most of the other translations. I would contend that it has within it a more consistent (not perfect)"theological rule' of interpretation than most of the other translations recommended. I definetly do not recommend the widely marketed NIV or New International Version.

As to Matthews comments about the bad manuscript source for the KJV, which manuscript are you recommending?

Sincerely,

John Curtis

[M.C. Steenberg]

As to Matthews comments about the bad manuscript source for the KJV, which manuscript are you recommending?

The KJV New Testament is based principally upon what is known as the 'Received Text', itself essentially a recension of the Greek text as collated together from a very small number of manuscripts by a medieval scholar named Eusebius. It became 'standard' inasmuch as his was the first printed edition of the Scriptures, became the most accessible and the most widely known -- all in very short order. But the received text is actually a remarkably un-critical manuscript, which actual critical manuscript work has shown to be largely deficient on a number of fronts.

In any case, the Received Text has never been one of established acceptance in the Orthodox Church (not least due to its incredibly late date!), and while some other churches may consider the Authorised Version to be 'the' version of the NT, this has never been the case with Orthodoxy.

In general, Orthodox translations have traditionally been based off of the most accurate manuscripts available at a given time, and thus in principle Orthodoxy is not at odds with the critical study of textual sources and further refinement of textual apparati, etc. However, the dominant rule in Orthodox textual acceptance is not scholarly, critical consensus, but rather the traditional witness of the Church; thus 'the texts the Fathers have used' has at least as much bearing on such questions as 'the text scholars have reconstructed'.

INXC, Matthew

[Razhden Guriadze]

John,your quote is correct in some versions on the King James, but, not so for all.

What I said was that the "Original Greek said,"Peace on earth good will to men with whom God is well pleased". Remember I said GREEK, Not KJV. The words "...with whom God is well pleased."

infer that "Peace on Earth" is not intended for those with whom God is not well pleased!!!!

The translators did not like this inference so they rewrote it!

This is only one of many rewritten passages in the KJV.

Go read the original Greek text and then read the KJV, you'll puke.

God guide us all,
ICXC,Razhden

[John Curtis Dunn]

Thank-you Matthew.

First, I am not a Greek scholar of, or with, any degree. I am a "parts person" (perhaps you are familiar with this term), meaning I am dependant upon the "instruction manuels" produced by others. However, even a parts person may become familiar with 'parts' and associated problems which occur with parts.

It was not my intent to defend the 'Received Text'(often referred to by the Latin term textus receptus). I have been taught that this term has been mistakenly understood by many outside of Orthodoxy to mean that it was the "Received Greek Manuscript by the Church" which as Matthew has succintly pointed out was not he case within Orthodoxy. The term came to be associated with the Greek Manuscript due to a 'marketing blurb' found within the preface of the second edition (1633) published by the Elzevir brothers. The term does has some relative historical truth within it; in that it was indeed the 'received text used on the European continen (the first Elzevir edition (pub. 1624) was for a long time the standard edition of the Greek New Testament.)

Matthew wrote: >>"But the received text is actually a remarkably un-critical manuscript"<<

I hope you are not meaning to suggest that the scholars who made use of it (Among them the quite renown Sir Lancelot Andrews) were un-critical? In the original 1611 KJV there are thirteen critical NT notes. Among them is Luke 17:36 of which the note reads, "This 36. verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies." Furthermore the scholorly manner in which the translators made use of the Greek manuscripts is apparahent in the Nativity Sermons preached by Sir Lancelot Andrews before King James (a most interesting read IMO).

Furthermore in the original 1611 KJV there are eleven pages in the front called, THE TRANSLATORS TO THE READER. On page 3 the following statement is found, ""The original there being from heaven, not from the earth, the author’s being God, not man, the editor, the Holy Spirit, not the wit of the apostles." In this quote the Translators are clearly making a reference to an "ORIGINAL TEXT." And by presenting the note from Luke 11:36 I have shown that the Translators did not conclude that their choice of an accepted manuscript was an absolute final word on the Greek. Also, neither did they give to their translation a "final word" stamp of approval. This latter KJV ONLY approach originates predominately from the US in the last century.

In my previous post in this tread I was not defending the Textus Receptus, rather I was defending the "English theological consistency" used within ith the KJV. Their is found within the use of English a consistency which creates a kind of 'orthodoxy of English theological expression.' Even so, I was not stating that this 'expression' was perfect for Orthodoxy, but then I have heard some argue English is devoid of all possibility to express Orthodoxy. But even if not perfect I have not read any English translation which IMO can capture the idiom of Orthodoxy as well as the KJV.

It will not suffice to point out particuliar examples where the KJV fails, for I have already stated it was less than perfect. In each offered modern translation arguments may be presented which show the peculiar failures of each. I have a few of my favorite texts which this is IMO blatantly apparent. (I could post a few if it is of any interest.)

I have attempted to distinguish between the Translation and the Text behind the Translation.
I hope I have been lucid in this attempt, if not, forgive me for prolonging this discussion. IMO that which Matthew described as 'beautiful' (the KJV English) is deeper than the synatical structure of 1611 English idioms. I am suggesting and contending that there is an "Theological English Tradition" which has value for communicating the Orthodox Faith found within the text of the KJV, not perfect, but superior to most if not 'all'.


Sincerely,
John Curtis

[John Curtis Dunn]

Razhden posted Saturday, April 13

"John,your quote is correct in some versions on the King James, but, not so for all."

I have a copy of the 1611 and it reads as I previously posted. Both the New KJV and the Modern KJV read essentially the same. I am unfamiliar with any other KJV.

I do know that the Douay-Rheims reads, "and on earth peace to men of good will." While the New American Standard Bible (NASB) reads, " And on earth peace among men with whom He is pleased." In the Greek text I have it reads, doxa {GLORY} en {IN [THE]} hupsistos {HIGHEST} theos {TO GOD,} kai {AND} epi {ON} ge {EARTH} eirene {PEACE,} en {IN} anthropos <{MEN} eudokia {GOOD PLEASURE.}"

In Luke 12:32 the KJ translators translated eudokia as 'good pleasure'. In Rom. 15:26, 27 it was translated, 'it hath pleased them'; 1 Cor., 1:21; Gal. 1:15; Col. 1:19; 1 Thess. 2:8 as, 'it pleased'.

It is fair enought to question "WHY" 'good will towards men' was the preferred rendering? Even so, I do not see any suspicious motives in that rendering. Sir Lancelot Andrews (who was one of the translators of the KJV) preached the following words before King James on one December 25th.

"Eudoxia, or eudoxiaz, nominative or genitive, let it not trouble you. "To men a good-will;" or "to men of good-will"~~no greate matter wheter, so long as eudoxia refers to God and to His "good pleasure," not to men or any will of theirs. And that so it is t be referred, I will use no other witness but Cardinal Tolet himself; who in his readings at Rome, and in the Pope' own Chapel, and upon this very place confesseth as much, that so is the native signification of the word; and so and no otherwise to be taken here, but in that sense.
And in that sense being taken, it goes well. Glory from us to Him, peace from Him to us. From men on earth to God on high, glory; from God on high to men on earth, peace. Men I say, toward whom He is now appeased, and with whom now He is well-pleased; and both, for this Child's sake here in the cratch, in Whom He is so absolutely well-pleased, as of the fulness of His favour we all receive. God spake it once and twice. 1. Once at His Baptism (Mat iii. 17); 2. and again in the Holy Mount. (Matt. xvii. 5.)
And hoc erit signum, this may be a sure sign that He is well-pleased with our nature, that He hath in this Child taken it and united it to His own; which, if He had not been highly well-pleased, He would never have done. What greater good-will can there be than this? It passeth the greatest, even that of marriage~~union of nature, unity o' person.
Then riseth there another doubt, what verb to put to here. For never a verb there is at all. Whether some indicative,``glory is or shall be; and then it is an hymn of gratulation, and agreeth well with laudantium, a praise to God that these now are. Now that God glory, now earth peace. Men are now received to favour and grace. Thus; or wheter sit or esto in the optative; and then it is votum bene ominatum, 'a vow or wish,' that glory may be to God; and so to the rest."

It does seem to me that the KJV renders it as 'will towards men' because they say the action coming from God towards man. And that the Incarnation is that good-will which is open to all to respond freely unto. If this is a correct understanding of the KJ translators intent then I see nothing un-Orthodox in its rendering. For certainly the Incarnation is for all or have I mis-understood my Orthodox faith here? While "all' do not respond in kind, or as Sir Lancelot Andrews stated it, with " hymn of gratulation, and agreeth well with laudantium, a praise to God." the message of the Incarnation is open towards them ALL, in that some, coming to their senses will respond accordingly.

Sincerely,
John Curtis

[M.C. Steenberg]

For those who are curious: Luke 2.14 is one of those passages where the manuscript witness to the original text is quite varied. The various manuscripts and patristic quotations of the passage which we have in our possession, reveal two principal versions of the phrase (you will probably need to be looking at this post on the web page, and not in email, to see the Greek properly):

1. doxa en hypsistois theo kai epi ges eirini en anthropois eudokias
Manuscript (MSS) witnesses to rendition 1: Aleph, A, B, D, W. Patristic witnesses: Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Jerome, Augustine, Gaudentius, and others.

2. doxa en hypsistois theo kai epi ges eirini en anthropois eudokia
MSS witnesses to rendition 2: Aleph, B, L, Delta, Theta, Xi, Upsilon, plus over 20 miniscule manuscripts. Patristic witnesses: Origen, Gregory Thaumaturgus, Eusebius, Pseudo Athanasius, Didymus, Epiphanius, Severian, John Chrysostom, Cyril, Proclus, Theodoret, and others.

For those who are familiar with Greek, taking note of the difference in these texts (I've highlighted the only different word in bold) will reveal that in the first version, eudokia ('good will') is in the gentive singular (eudokias) while in the second it is in the nominative singular (eudokia). This difference yields two different and unambiguous translations:

1. Glory to God in the highest, and upon the earth peace among men of goodwill.

2. Glory to God in the highest, and upon the earth peace and goodwill among men.

From the translation side of things, it is important to note that neither of the two versions of the text is in the slightest bit ambiguous unto itself: if one is translating from the Greek of the first version (with the genitive eudokias), the translation must read 'peace among men of goodwill' and not 'peace and goodwill among men'. Conversely, a translation based on the Greek of the second option must read 'peace and goodwill among men' and not 'peace among men of goodwill'. There is no element of interpretation that comes into this arena: whichever version of the Greek 'original' one is using, the translation that it must yield is absolutely clear.

The question, of course, comes up in the matter of selecting which version of the Greek is 'the original'. Critical study of the manuscripts and transmission theory give good reason to believe that option 1 ('peace among men of goodwill') may be the oldest and therefore most original version of the Greek (which, we must remember, we do not actually possess) -- but this evidence is not entirely definitive.

As I've endeavoured to show through a mention of the major manuscripts and patristic sources that evidence each of the options, there is no consensus among the Fathers as to which version is proper. There are actually more quotations in the writings of patristic sources that use option 2; but some writers of the patristic era (e.g. Origen) actually use both: in some instances they quote version 1, in others they quote version 2. We cannot really say that one version is 'Orthodox' and the other is 'wrong', primarily because the Fathers show us that both versions are valuable.

Perhaps the truth of each statement is important.

INXC, Matthew

[Razhden Guriadze]

Greetings in Christ,

Please forgive me, I did not intend to get this discussion hung on one verse.

I do not know which version of Greek New Testament the Georgian Bible was translated from.

The copy I have goes on to say "and to the rest His wrath".

I am sure that the Bible scholars know better than I which version is is better for what use.

I resign,
ICXC,
Razhden

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Razhden, please do not feel bad for having 'hung up' this discussion on the details of a verse: this is precisely the kind of thing for which these discussion boards are intended. The question of the Greek texts underlying specific passages of the Scripture, especially those which have given rise to many differing English translations, is extremely interesting. It is often informative to learn that the wide variety of English translations in our possession (or other language translations) stems from the (little known) fact that we have almost as many versions of the Greek, with no real way of knowing, in many cases, which is the most original. The history behind the text is fascinating and informative, especially in the way that patristic authors made use of the different versions.

So by all means, carry on. http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

As a note on your last post, you mentioned that your Georgian Bible flushed out Lk 2.14 with '...and to the rest His wrath'. I must admit that this is a version I have never seen. I have here my critical text with its listing of all the variants, but there is no mention of this extension as occurring in any MS or patristic quotation. You don't happen to know any of the history of how it's arrived in the Georgian Bible, do you?

INXC, Matthew

[John Curtis Dunn]

Razhden Posted on Sunday, April 14,

The copy I have goes on to say "and to the rest His wrath". I am sure that the Bible scholars know better than I which version is is better for what use.


Concerning Razhaden's closing statemtent it would seem a quote from the Apostle Paul adequately expresses our Orthodox way in these matters. "Not that we lord it over your faith, but are fellow workers of your joy: for by faith ye stand. 2 Cor.:2:24 and again For we are to God a sweet smelling fragrance of Christ in those being saved and in those perishing: to some on the one hand an odor of death to death, and to others an odor of life to life. And who is sufficient for these things? For we are not as the many, peddling the word of God; but as of sincerity, but as of God, befoe the face of God speak we in Christ." 2 Cor. 2:15-17

On the latter verse St John Chrysostom taught us, "For some so receive this sweet smell so as to be saved, but others so as to perish. So that if anyone should be lost, the fault is from his own cause." [Hom. 5: 2 Cor.]

IMO "it is not necessary for us to concede this matter into the hands of Bible Scholars." They are servants to our Orthodox Faith/Church not LORDS over it and us. That latter position is much more evident within Protestantism than Orthodoxy. And while it would appear to me that the Georgian translator has 'garnished' the passage in order to clarify its meaning. "Peace on earth good will to men with whom God is well pleased and to the rest His wrath". That does not make the translation less valuable, especially if it is an Orthodox translation. For the 'warning' (and that is the root meaning of garnish as a transitive verb) is latent within the text.

Our Western cultures have been sensitized by Protestantism's "Bible alone" mentality. There is a prevelant idea that if we could reach some common Scholarly consensus about the "true original text" our divisions would evaporate. it does appear to me that many Scholars are in search for the elusive 'original text' not the Faith which understands the text correctly. (I am not saying All, for thankfully Matthew is among us.)

I would contend that as Orthodox Christians "All variants are open to our USE, because it is our Faith/Church which instructs us and not just a scholarly assessment of available documents. This extends beyond the sphere of Greek Manuscripts into that of Translations. All belong to us to make use. This latter idea may smack of a kind of Orthodox Triumphantalism, but it is the Trumpet I blow.

If the text under discussion had been Luke 1:28 I would have been more amenable to your statement about the KJV translators inserting an idea which is not "ORTHODOX" For their choice has resulted in much debate between Orthodox and Protestant. "Hail, thou that are highly favoured," (KJV) For their translation does not approach the Orthodox confession of the Theotokos in relation to the Incarnation.

Forgive me.

John Curtis

[Razhden]

Greetings in Christ,
Matthew,

I am feeling a little embarrassed.I do teach and have taught a class in "Reading what the Bible says , not what it means". I am seeing things I either never saw or forgot.

The "...and to the rest His wrath." it shows as footnote that "Some copies add." By the way Maybe "flushed out" was the better choice.

I feel that if we "read the words" of the Bible we can get a better sense of it. All too often, we "glaze over" the words looking for the meaning.

As you well know, there are so many "copies" out there it is hard to know which one to use.

Translators find this out very quickly. This is why we must not only ask God for guidance but a lifetime supply aspirin and rolaids.

God guide us all to where He wants us,
ICXC,
Razhden

[M.C. Steenberg]

No need to be embarrassed at all, Razhden! As you might have been able to gather from my previous posts, this is a topic I greatly enjoy, and we are all in the process of learning when it comes to these things. I know many scholars, Orthodox and non-Orthodox, who have spent a lifetime on these matters and have written books that everyone takes as foundational in the area -- and these men and women are still very much in the process of learning. It is simply a wonderfully huge issue.

Just as one point of clarification on my earlier post: the term 'to flush out' a text doesn't imply (as it might seem to!) any negative sentiment -- it simply means to expand on what is originally there. I realised after I had posted the message that this might seem a bit of a judgmental term, which it is not meant to be.

INXC, Matthew

[Chad Duskin]

Razhden:
As the one who started this thread I greatly appreciate what you had to say. This kind of discussion was exactly what I wanted to have happen. I am still expectantly waiting for the Orthodox Study Bible to come out! In the mean time I wanted to see what others thought about English translations that are almost 100% controlled by Protestant groups. Not all of their work is bad, but some is and you have pointed that out.

I have recently come across the English Standard Version. Thumbing through it, it seemed pretty good. Anybody else seen it or have any thoughts? I have mostly been using the Revised Standard Version (not the New Revised Standard Version. I have heard comments about the gender inclusive language that has kept me away from it).

Please keep this discussion going! I hope someone from the translation team for the Orthodox Study Bible is reading. I would love for them to ask for feed-back when it is done in case of a revision (God willing, it won't be needed!!).

Chad

[John Curtis Dunn]

One problem area I have with many new English translations is in the translation of monogenEs. I am curious how the Georgian translation reads John 3:16.

John Curtis

[Razhden]

Greetings in Christ,
I am not failiar with the term "monogenEs" I barely know the "Q" from the "P" and the "T".
Lord guide us into Thy truth,
ICXC,
Razhden

[Moses Anthony]

Chad, John, Matthew, Razhden....,

Among Protestants to this very day; there are ongoing debates/arguements as to, which version of the Scriptures are the ones on which to base their 'faith and message.' As a Protestant I forsook the Authorized Version for the NASB, because I did not speak or at times understand the Elizabethan vernacular. I often thought that scholars would have a heart attack if for some reason God would speak to them telling them to use the New American Standard (I had a dim view of biblical scholars).

At this time I own at least six translations and two paraphrases of the Scriptures. I've read each of them from cover to cover at least once, my preference, the New American Standard. Even now as a converted Orthodox there still rages debates over who is true to the True Faith. I turn as I often did as a Protestant, to the Holy Spirit, who as Jesus said "...will guide you into all the truth". It's a good thing that He didn't say anything about which version of the Scriptures He would use to guide us.

HIS Servant
Moses

[Razhden]

Greetings in Christ,
To quote from some of my acquaintances in the "Good Ol' New Hess Hay" ,"I like the Saint James Bible. If it was good enough for Peter and Paul,It's good enough fer' me."
God bless us one and all,
ICXC,
Razhden

[Mark T. Kern]

Greetings in Christ,

I have a question for the discussion group along similar lines. I have been helping to post the Gospel and Epistle Readings, and the Troparion and Kontakion for the day at the www.antiochian.org (http://www.antiochian.org) web site, where the webmaster is Michael Srour. The intent was for congregations to be able to download this directly to their Sunday bulletins, and the text we use is that of the Gospel Book and the Epistle Book. Beginning with Holy Week, we're adding Old Testament Readings also, and the text I chose to use is the Brenton Septuagint text. My question for the group is what is the consensus regarding the choice of Old Testament text. I preferred the Septuagint text because it is the Old Testament of the Church. But its old English does not appeal to me.

Your brother and servant,
Mark

[Richard McBride]

Blessed of the Lord, Mark:

You asked (April 17, 2002):
“what is the consensus regarding the choice of Old Testament text. I preferred the Septuagent text because it is the Old Testament of the Church. But its old English does not appeal to me.”

Many on the list have expressed a similar hesitation (as yours) to what I would call a 19th Century Elizabethan translation, as Brenton’s LXX (but it is not Old English); more so, they refer to a dislike for the KJV. I’m sure they will mention as much in their welcoming response to your message.

What they are less likely to mention is the recall that your Antiochean Archdiocese typically uses a modern version of the Elizabethan English in much of its prayers, liturgical texts, etc., seen principally in the use of the Familiar pronouns long purged from Modern English. I assume, that for consistency’s sake, this Antiochean practice would not “appeal” to you either, Mark? I ask because of my experience with Greek Orthodox translations which have given free reign to all manner of new English language meanings.

Apparently, the Greek Archdiocese long ago decided it did not care for either the Antiochean or other English versions of any texts. Thus lacking appeal, and in typically modernist fashion, the Greek Archdiocese now re-translates everything (they have left the Our Father in the Elizabethan form, but all else is up for grabs). That is meant literally, for much of today’s Typikon will be re-translated again in next year’s version (if past habits hold true). Of course, what does NOT change, is the Greek Typikon. Thank God, the modernizers have been kept out of that pail.

Unhappily, this is too easily the fate of translations. The unchanging guide from the past, in its old and unpopular language, seems to beg for modernization to the change-hungry exegete. But why not? The doors are always thrown open to every new exegetic invention, perversion and preference once the necessity for a new translation flicks its tongue from the Tree of Knowledge. Translation is re-writing. That which is re-written is newly invented, hopefully based upon references to the past; but such reference are vague at best (the KJV itself), and at worst they result in some horror as The Inclusive Version.

That much I say in general terms. More to the point, I am surprised that even more invention was not exercised on The (NT) Orthodox Study Bible -- and I mean such even though it was not itself translated, being (as I know you know) from the NKJV. But the NKJV was already a product of Reform, was it not? (You may correct me on any of this, for, ”I know nothing”, even as Manuel claimed on Fawlty Towers.)

My impression is that the Vulgate was flawed, the LXX was merely Greek and thus passed over Hebrew texts, which themselves ignored Aramaic, and so enter the Masoretic Texts as a basis for the NKJV Psalms. But were the Masoretic texts not compiled over a millennium after the LXX? What looms at me in all this is that anyone with an exegetic mind may find all the excuses needed to launch into a new frenzy of re-writings.

But truly, I know nothing. I sadly wonder what ever happened to the true notion of Tradition (not mere lip sinking)? Does anyone believe as I do, that a mind which avoids the urge for newness and change, may yet find solace in struggling with Tradition, with an attempt to merely reproduce that which is traditional in this new language -- not to rewrite it. Alas! What a word game it all becomes. It is logomaxia. For there are so many urges to re-write; for instance: In the name of diversity; In the name of women’s rights; In the name of the sacredness of the individual. There are so few pressures to ignore being relevant using these heresies; there seems no urging at all to wish for the namelessness of mere copying -- attempting to truly reproduce the old into the new. No glamour in that, I suppose.

All of which is lost on this new generation. I know that. Still, I feel that I needed to say as much; and to say even more pointedly, that I am convinced that the last thing needed in re-doing the LXX is any concern -- any concern at all -- for that which I personally feel; or that which appeals to me. Even from an aesthetic viewpoint, such personalisms are out of place to a truly (philosophically) aesthetic nature, much more so to a Traditional Mind.

Forgive not what I say, but my poor ability to express these thoughts: richard

[Razhden]

Greetings in Christ,

And in all of this translating what becomes of the "Qumran" documents?

I guess I have to draw the line when I get to "Our Patron, who resides elsewhere.Provider is your name....."

God guide us into all truth,
ICXC,
Razhden

[Chad Duskin]

I guess if I could sum up some of why I would like to see an Orthodox Translation of the LXX into English and an Orthodox translation of the New testament into English it would be:

1. The Bible of the New Testament church was the Greek LXX. I have read various stories as to how the translation came about, but what is important to me is that the translation was done before the coming of the Messiah and by people who had access to the Jewish scriptures and knew the traditional way of understanding the Hebrew and Aramaic languages written without vowel markings. They read the scriptures with the hope of the Messiah forefront in their minds. They put into Greek (a very precise written language) the Hebrew scriptures. And if the stories are correct (that all 70 individual translators came up with the same translation) then the Holy Spirit superintended the translation work. The Law and the Prophets pointed to the Messiah. On the other hand, the Masorites translated and interpreted the Jewish scriptures through the eyes of denying that Jesus was the Messiah. They weren't looking at the scriptures to find the Messiah, but reject the true Messiah.

2. No good translation of the LXX exists in the English language. By "good" I mean a translation that is checked and rechecked for accuracy and fluency in English. Not just the scholarly work of one person 130 years ago. It has to be done with the same purpose the the original 70 translators had to bring the Word of God to the people in the language of the people. By Word of God I mean both the written message and the second person of the Holy Trinity. It has to have as its goal a revealing of the Messiah to the reader. If the Bereans searched the scriptures to see if what Paul was telling them about Jesus was true then I want to use the same scriptures they did: the LXX.

3. The majority of English New Testament translations are done by Protestant groups that mis-translate words and passages to hide or erase the liturgical, sacramental and episcopal history of the early church. The Greek word for tradition is translated as tradition when used as the traditions of men but is translated as that which is passed down when it refers to the Tradition of the Apostles. The Greek word for doing the liturgy (liturgizing) is translated as ministering. There are other examples and different translations out there will give different results. I am just giving a broad example of what I've seen.



Just some thoughts.

Chad

[John Curtis Dunn]

Chad Duskin Posted on Thursday, April 18,

If the Bereans searched the scriptures to see if what Paul was telling them about Jesus was true then I want to use the same scriptures they did:


Acts 17:11 "These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so."

The key word seems to be "readiness of mind [prothumia {proth-oo-mee'-ah}].} I prefer the King James translation here for it does capture the Greek with much more vitality of thought than most (if not all, some just follow the KJV) modern English versions.

NKJV: readiness
NASB: great eagerness
CEV: gladly accepted
TEV: great eagerness
RSV: eagerness

The issue in translation (IMO) is much more than a matter of exact literalness. Matthew has in a previous post referred to the beauty of the KJV, and beauty] should always be a contributing factor. But, the beauty in the KJV choice is the consistent imagery to which the translators strived (again not always perfect, but IMO superior). Indeed, in reading the KJV it appears (again IMO) that the translators approached their task with "readiness of mind."

IMO, there is something lost in the translation alternatives exampled above. The KJ translators give something to the reader and LISTENER (for in the Orthodox Church reading of Scripture is consumated in the hearing which we know is more than audio reception). What then is being imaged for the LISTENER in the KJ which is not actively present within the alternative readings?

Let us examine 2 Cor. 8:11 which reads in the KJV as: "Now therefore perform the doing [of it]; that as [there was] a readiness (prothumia) to will, so [there may be] a performance also out of that which ye have." And in the same chapter verse 19: "And not [that] only, but who was also chosen of the churches to travel with us with this grace, which is administered by us to the glory of the same Lord, and [declaration of] your ready mind (prothumia):"

The word eagerness does not elevate the attention of the hearer in the same manner as <u>readiness of mind</u>. There is a sound value in the English language which our linear thought process fails to apprehend, but which our attentive comprehension in listening is waiting to be engaged. If the sound value becomes monotone or bovine our attention becomes passive and perhaps even deaf.

The phrase &#34;readiness of mind&#34; introduces a sound value which is rarely articulated in English &#40;I am referring to the hearing of Scripture&#41;: &#34;red&#39;i ness. There are few English words which have this sound; which is the sound of a color: RED. &#40;there&#39;s a concept for you&#41;. The whole KJV phrase images an active mind.

Perhaps it is coincidence but, modern neurological studies have shown the brain is most active when it is filled with blood &#40;and forgive me if this sounds like a stretch&#41;, that is the color RED. In the phrase readiness of mind there is expressed a mind which is already active towards the truth. This phrase expresses an active synergism is taking place between the speaker and the hearer &#40;let him who has ears, hear&#41;. The mind of the Bereans was made active or engaged by the preaching of the Apostle. It was the synergism between the Apostle and the Bereans which motivated them to &#39;search the Scriptures.&#34;

The word eagerness does NOT communicate this same state of mind. The term eagerness expresses a different kind of blood activity elsewhere in the body. This term has more to do with sensual desire. Or to be blunt: &#34;A dog can be eager, but never will it possess a &#34;readiness of mind&#34; &#40;sorry dog owners&#41;. The word eager also describes a &#39;sudden swell&#34; or rise in tide. This also corresponds to the passions.

So, IMO, the task of the Orthodox English Translator is much more arduous than for those who are busy filling the coffers of publishing houses. For the Orthodox Translator must always be of a &#34;ready mind&#34; towards the hearer as well as towards the reader. For Orthodoxy is communicated much more in the hearing than in the reading.

That last statement is clearly apparhent in the case of the Bereans. When they searched the Scriptures their minds were already actively engaged in receiving the truth. Thus, when they read the texts of the Scriptures, they were able to understand the Scriptures Spiritually having just had their minds filled with the sound of a Spirit-filled Apostle/Preacher. Their apprehension to the truth of Christ as found in the Scriptures was directly related to their having been engaged synergistically with the Apostle&#39;s voice. Or to state it another way, &#34;They read the Scriptures with the Apostle&#39;s voice ringing in their ears.&#34;

As an aside; this is why the task of the Reader is so viberant in the Divine Services of Orthodox worship. If he reads as one who himself has a &#34;ready mind&#34; the hearers are made capable towards synergistically participating by having &#34;readiness of mind.&#34; Where the Scriptures are concerned in Orthodoxy, both the &#34;reading&#39; and the &#34;hearing&#34; are hypostatically joined, they become one.

Sincerely,
John Curtis

[John Curtis Dunn]

John Curtis Dunn posted on Thursday, April 18,


"Where the Scriptures are concerned in Orthodoxy, both the "reading' and the "hearing" are hypostatically joined, they become one."

Please note: I am amending my last statement. After re-reading it I am less certain that my use of "hypostatically joined" communicates clearly what I was describing concerning the synergistic relationship between "Reader and hearer." The question begs how the speaker and listener become one? While that is not precisely what I was intending to suggest, it may be that others will understand my choice of words to state just that.

Also, please forgive my accusative statement concerning 'translators.' I wrote: " So, IMO, the task of the Orthodox English Translator is much more arduous than for those who are busy filling the coffers of publishing houses." While working today my mind reflected back upon my choice of words, I then recalled that Matthew has noted that he personally knows several who have worked or are presently working on translating the Holy Scriptures. I have no excuse, I did not mean to be offensive, if I have offended, please forgive me.

Sincerely,
John Curtis.

[Chad Duskin]

Thank you John for those comments! You have said what I was trying to say above in a clearer way. I want a translation of the scriptures into English by people who have a readiness of mind for people who have a readiness of mind. I believe that the translators of the LXX were such people and why it has been the scriptures of the Church in the East since the beginning.

As for the New Testment....I am not extremely knowledgeable in what texts are considered better than others and it seems as if the Fathers quoted different manuscripts themselves within the same work. It didn&#39;t change the meaning of it for them. That is what I want in an English translation: a work that will reflect the Tradition of the Church as embodied in the Orthodox faith.

Chad

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Chad, John and others reading and taking part in this discussion,

I continue to enjoy the dialogue on language and translation. Since the conversation is turning towards the conception of what it means to produce an Orthodox translation of a given text &#40;most notably, of the sacred Scriptures&#41;, I thought I might offer my own thoughts via a few words I wrote on the subject a couple of years ago. I realise the risk of seeming self-aggrandizing in referencing my own work, but it saves my from having to type it again.

The document, &#39;On the Theory and Practice of Orthodox Translation&#39;, is available at:

http://www.monachos.net/other/on_orthodox_translation.html

INXC, Matthew

[Mark T. Kern]

Greetings in Christ,

In my question of 4-17, I asked what English translation the discussion group preferred. The question was not just a "nice-to-know", but was directed toward what English translation we should be using for the Old Testament Readings that are posted on the Antiochian web site. The Scripture Readings, including the Gospel and Epistle Readings and now Old Testament Readings are being posted so that Churches can download them directly to their weekly bulletin. The text for the Gospel and Epistle Readings are a "corrected" RSV text, where major gaffs in the RSV "interpretation" are changed to reflect an Orthodox viewpoint. As Chad Duskin and John Curtis Dunn mentioned, the impact on the listener is considered, since the RSV text reads well to an English speaking audience.

Regarding a choice of an Old Testament text, I prefer the LXX, so I used the Brenton LXX text. Richard McBride seemed to prefer the LXX also, but I didn't sense a strong preference. Chad Duskin definitely preferred the LXX, but noted that no good English translation exist -- which includes the Brenton LXX that we've started using. So this comes back to the reason for my original post!!! What other choice is there?

In preparing the Gospel and Epistle Readings for posting on the web site, I download the RSV text from the BibleWorks5 software, since I can't find an electronic copy of the Gospel Book or the Epistle Book. Then I go through the text, comparing it to the Gospel Book and the Epistle Book word for word. I suppose that I could do the same with the RSV text (or some other text like the NASV or NKJV) and compare it with the Brenton LXX for major gaffs. This will be a lot of work (Has anyone noticed how many Old Testament Readings there are just for Holy Week??), and I would like to see a consensus of opinion in favor of that before embarking on such a huge task. I expect that all this will be solved with the publishing of the Orthodox Study Bible in 2005, but what should we use until then?

Razhden asked what became of the Qumran documents in all this translating. The Qumran documents are only fragments, and some of the fragments are the LXX. There now exists an English translation of the entire collection of Qumran documents. If anyone would like to know details of the publisher, etc., let me know.

Your brother and servant,
Mark

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

Perhaps I should clarify one point regarding the Old Testament in Orthodox usage: as far as the Church is concerned, the only &#39;official&#39; version of the Old Testament is the Septuagint &#40;LXX&#41; -- it is the only version of the OT authorised for full doctrinal clarification, hierarchical quotation, etc. All other versions of the OT, including any version drawn from the Hebrew text &#40;thus including the NKJV, RSV, NRSV, NASB, KJV, NIV and almost every current English translation&#41; is considered fundamentally disparate from the Church&#39;s Old Testament on every point in which it differs from the text of the LXX.

This does not mean that these English versions drawn from the Hebrew cannot be used by Orthodox Christians; obviously they can, especially since an adequate translation of the LXX in English has yet to be produced &#40;though it is under way in the OSB project&#41;. But it does mean that OT Scriptures as presented in these versions must always be taken somewhat generally: it is unwise to get into too intricate debates over precise wording or exact conceptual presentations in these versions, as often one finds that the debate centres over issues that simply aren&#39;t present in the LXX in the first place.

In terms of which English version of the Old Testament should be used in a given parish, this is entirely the decision of the bishop. Many jurisdictions or dioceses will have set policies &#40;the RSV, NRSV and KJV are very common on large-scale terms&#41;, but certain bishops may require a certain translation. It should definitely be stressed that only the bishop has the authority to decide which version of Scripture should be used in a liturgical setting, and this is a question of such great import that it should be the bishop who decides which version is to be used. One generally finds that bishops are eager to receive such questions as these: if you are pondering which version of the OT to use in a website/download system, the sure route to follow is to ask him. http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif
INXC, Matthew

[Richard McBride]

Christos Anesti!

If anyone would like to see this article, send me an email and I&#39;ll mail it back

YESHUA OF NATZERET: Willis Barnstone&#39;s translation of the New
Testament aims to restore its Hebrew context
--&#62; SEE http://chronicle.com/free/v48/i35/35a02001.htm

richard

Alithos Anesti!

[Clarence Dodd]

I really got a chuckle out of this piece of translation from Mark:


"Yohanan the Dipper appeared in the desert, preaching an immersion of repentance for the remission of sin. The whole land of Yehuda and all the people of Yerushalayim came out to him and were being immersed by him in the Yarden river" --*and among those people came "Yeshua," from "Natzeret in the Galil."

I am amuzed at the thought of commemorating "The first finding of the honorable head of our Father Yohanan the Dipper."

Clarence

[M.C. Steenberg]

Hello Richard and Clarence,

This Hebraic translation of the New Testament sounds like an interesting project. It is not the first of its kind &#40;it&#39;s actually a rather common task to assign to religion undergraduates, on a much smaller scale - say perhaps a chapter of one of the Gospels, etc&#41;, but it sounds like one of the most expansive.

Generally I find such things interesting as historical reminders and contextual aids: it is good to remember and be reminded of the Jewish context in which Jesus lived, and it is true that centuries of translation and transmission have largely buffeted this reality out of most people&#39;s minds. However, from the scant previews of Barnstone&#39;s translation that I&#39;ve read, I&#39;m not entirely certain that he&#39;s remained wholly accurate to the sense of the Hebraisms in all instances. Still, it is an ear-startling &#40;and therefore reflection-inspiring&#41; text.

Such things as this are useful for study. Not, of course, for general devotional and certainly not for liturgical use.

If anyone has actually read a copy of this work, I am sure that many on these message boards would be interested in reader &#39;reviews&#39; of the text.

XB, Matthew

[Rev. Bartholomew Wojcik]

XC is risen!

This is a &#34;tripartite&#34; message.

PART ONE
Posted on Thursday, 25 April, 2002 - 1:20 am. by Matthew C. Steenberg
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...as far as the Church is concerned, the only &#39;official&#39; version of the Old Testament is the Septuagint &#40;LXX&#41; -- it is the only version of the OT authorised for full doctrinal clarification, hierarchical quotation, etc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am curious as to whether there is any formal Church statement regarding the &#34;official&#34; status of the LXX. I&#39;m curious because not all Orthodox Fathers have always relied exclusively on the LXX, noteably Semitic &#40;e.g. Syriac&#41; or Coptic Fathers, among others, who may not have even known Greek.

This query is obviously not intended to jettison the LXX, rather to find its &#34;official&#34; place among the various historic texts vis-á-vis those canonical fathers who used different texts-- though likely consistent with the LXX.

PART TWO
Has anyone the final word on the Apocalypse &#40;Revelation&#41;?

The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers &#40;second series, vol. 14&#41; lists five distinct canons covering the list of true scripture. They are not unanimous. Canon XL of Laodicea excludes Revelation, while Canon XXIV &#40;Gk: XXVII&#41; of the Carthaginian/African Code includes it, though Apostolic Canon LXXXV &#40;approved in Canon II of the Synod of Trullo&#41; excludes Revelation. Two more from Trullo, St. Gregory the Theologian’s canon and St. Amphilochius’ canon seem to exclude it.

The commentaries of the various holy Fathers of the Church are equally mixed.

The Anchor Bible Dictionary &#40;vol. 5, p. 695&#41; concludes its discussion on the history of the canonicity of Revelation thus:

The Tullan Synod &#40;or Quinisextine [Fifth-Sixth] Council&#41; held by Eastern bishops in 692 affirmed the Laodicean canon that omits Revelation, but they also drew up a list including it…. The Byzantine list of canonical scriptures called the Stichometry of Nicephorus &#40;ca. 810 C.E.&#41; omits Revelation. The oldest surviving commentary in Greek was written either by Oecumenius or Andreas…. The archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, Arethas, wrote the third surviving Greek commentary ca. 900 C.E. These commentaries apparently won greater recognition for Revelation in the East. In the 10th and 11th centuries Revelation began to be included once again in Greek mss of the NT….

It seems that Revelation has a repeatedly “in and out” history of canonicity, though all Eastern Orthodox New Testament manuscripts have included it for last millennium or so.

Another point to consider is wether the book was used in the West&#39;s liturgical services as Scripture prior to the Great Schism and if this was accepted as orthodox and not viewed as an abberation, perversion, or corruption. If so, this would argue for canonicity.

PART THREE
Does anyone have enough familiarity with the relatively new English Standard Version Bible to offer a review or critique? You can see its web page at the ESV homepage (http://www.gnpcb.org/home/esv).

in XC,
Fr. Bartholomew Wojcik

[John Wehling]

Christ is Risen!

Fr Bartholomew, I am unfamiliar with the ESV, but looking at the homepage and seeing the list of translators makes me wary. It is fundamentally an evangelical/fundamentalist Protestant project, and if the NIV is any sort of indicator, the ESV will be less than suitable for Orthodox Christians.

By the way, I am wondering if anyone can confirm a statement that I heard. The gist of it was that Billy Graham’s group produced a modern Russian translation of the Bible that used the word “icon” &#40;in Russian&#41; for the second commandment, so that it read “you shall not worship an icon…” Can anybody confirm this? I would be terribly disappointed if this were true

John

[Geoffrey Wind]

I am planning on buying a copy of the Bible for a friend, as he doesn&#39;t have one for studying &#40;he is Orthodox&#41;. I recently saw the &#34;NRSV Anglicised Edition&#34; in the store: does anyone know anything about this? What exactly makes it &#34;Anglicised&#34;? Is it an accurate translation?

Thanks. Geoffrey

[John Wehling]

Geoffrey,

The New Revised Standard Version is an &#34;updated&#34; version of the RSV. What that means, among other things, is that it contains inclusive &#40;non-gender specific&#41; language for mankind, but not for God. Most Orthodox that I am aware of have frowned on this translation, for good reason I believe.

You might consider buying your friend the Orthodox Study Bible. It has notes accompanying passages of scripture, articles on key themes, morning and evening prayers, etc. It is a useful tool, especially for those who are new to the faith or not practiced in scripture reading.

Hope this helps,

John Wehling

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Geoffrey and John,

With regard to the Anglicised edition of the New Revised Standard Version &#40;NRSV&#41;, the &#39;anglicised&#39; in the title means that the style of the English employed has been modified from that of the standard NRSV &#40;which was the work predominantly of scholars fluent in American English&#41; to that of current British English usage. This is apparent throughout in spelling differences &#40;&#39;honour&#39; for the American &#39;honor&#39;; &#39;centre&#39; for &#39;center&#39;; etc&#41;, as well as variations in standard English grammar &#40;e.g., British English employs &#39;got&#39; for the American past participle &#39;gotten&#39;, and so on&#41;. This text is not a re-translation from the original Greek and Hebrew, but rather an adjustment of the English used in the translation to conform to British usage.

I believe that the Introduction of the edition provides thorough details on the nature and extent of the changes.

A brief word on the translation of the NRSV itself. This text is often criticised for being &#39;gender inclusive&#39; in its rendition of gender-specific terms in both the Hebrew and the Greek sources. In a very strict sense, this is true: terms such as anthropos &#40;&#39;man&#39;&#41; are translated most often as &#39;person&#39; &#40;though in each instance, the NRSV editors provide a footnote presenting the literal &#39;he&#39;&#41;; and as John has pointed out, such gender-inclusivism is never applied to titles or pronouns relating to God.

But, taking it as a given that such a rendering of the original terms is, indeed, &#39;inclusive&#39;, it is so in a way that even the most traditionalist and fiercly Orthodox of scholars would recognise as inherent in the text. The Fathers themselves understood and accepted that such a term as anthropos in Greek decidedly does not refer just to a &#39;male&#39;, but to a human person - of either gender. This is readily apparent throughout the patristic witness, where quite often we find examples of such statements as &#39;The Lord Jesus Christ came to save all anthropoi&#39;, or &#39;The teachings of the sacred Scriptures are given for all anthropoi&#39;. In both of these examples, the direct object is obviously &#40;and in many cases in the texts, explicitly&#41; both males and females. The simple point of the linguistical matter is that the term anthropos in Greek does not possess the gender-exclusivity of the English &#39;man&#39;. There are those of us &#40;and I am numbered among these&#41; who are keen to retain the traditional sense of the English collective &#39;man&#39; as a gender-inclusive term; but even we cannot object to the fact that translating anthropos as &#39;person&#39; is entirely justifiable and in no way a &#39;modification&#39; of the original text.

To translate a text &#39;inclusively&#39; is, in this sense, nothing more than bringing out the truly inclusive sense of the original language&#40;s&#41;; and there is nothing objectionable to such a methodology from an Orthodox viewpoint.

But there is another, far more insidious kind of &#39;gender inclusivism&#39; which the Church is ardently against. This is the sort that genuinely modifies the obvious gender-specific meaning of an original text, in order to make it more &#39;paletable&#39; to the modern-day hearer. To translate &#39;son&#39; as &#39;child&#39;, when the original was specifically intended to mean a male child, is a form of this sort of &#39;inclusivism&#39;. To translate &#39;Father&#39; as &#39;Parent&#39; is another. Such translations are not translations at all, but re-interpretations of a text that present a different meaning than that intended by the original source; and to this kind of Scriptural translation the Orthodox Church gives no welcome whatsoever.

Back to the NRSV: One will find in its pages plenty of the first kind of &#39;inclusivism&#39;, which is not of itself objectionable &#40;there are a few other issues with the NRSV that raise some slight objections; but this isn&#39;t really one of them&#41;. One will not find in the NRSV the kind of &#39;gender inclusivism&#39; that is forbidden by the Church. In actuality, the NRSV is one of the better translations of the New Testament and Hebrew Scriptures available in English, and is widely embraced by the OCA in America, parts of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, and also the various Orthodox jurisdictions in the UK. If one is unable to read the Scriptures in their original languages, the NRSV is, in fact, probably the best translation from which to study if one intends to grapple with the text itself.

&#40;All of this keeping in mind that the Old Testament of the NRSV, as with almost every other English translation, is of the Hebrew Scriptures and not of the Church&#39;s Septuagint version. At present, there is no acceptible English version of the Septuagint; though this will soon be rectified by the publication of the Orthodox Study Bible&#39;s new edition of the LXX.&#41;

INXC, Matthew

[John Wehling]

Matthew et al.,

Prior to coming into the Church, I was a Protestant who used the NRSV almost exclusively, and who found it to be, for the most part, a fine translation. I found your comments about the OCA&#39;s use of the NRSV interesting, though, because I was told by the priest who brought me into the Church that the OCA &#40;of which he is a part&#41; frowned on the NRSV. When I pointed out to him that the NRSV didn&#39;t use inclusive language for God but only for references to mankind generally &#40;as you highlighted clearly in your post&#41;, he countered with the examples of the Psalms. Here the &#34;Man&#34; who keeps the law of the LORD is often understood prophetically/typologically by the fathers as Christ. So in Psalm 1, which we sing weekly at Resurrection Vigil: &#34;Blessed is the Man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked...&#34; In the NRSV this comes out:

&#34;Happy are those who do not follow the advice of the wicked...&#34;

I am not saying that you are wrong, Matthew, only pointing out the discrepancy between your comments and my priest&#39;s. I would be interested in any clarification you can offer me.

Peace,
John

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear John,

Thank you for your further comments on the NRSV. You are quite right in bringing up as an example Psalm 1, which &#40;to my own mind&#41; is one of the most poorly translated texts in that entire edition. You are also right to bring up your priest&#39;s comments against the NRSV: despite the fact that a good portion of the OCA, for example, embraces it &#40;when in the States at OCA parishes, I have heard the NRSV in use several times&#41;, other portions do not. It is not, as far as I know, a uniform standard.

Choosing a text to use as &#39;the&#39; translation for a Church/jurisdiction is difficult, primarily for the fact that all translations have some weaknessess &#40;this is just a part of translation&#41;; and also because the vast majority of Scriptural translations in English have been carried out without any manner of substantial Orthodox influence -- thus certain non- or even anti-Orthodox bias is bound to be somewhere therein. There is not a &#39;perfect&#39; translation in English, as far as the Church is concerned &#40;hence the reason, for example, that ecclesiastical doctrinal considerations are always based on the original source languages&#41;; and thus the task becomes choosing an &#39;acceptible version&#39;. To this end, there are often different ends adopted for different situations: I have known dioceses to use one version &#40;e.g. the NKJV&#41; for liturgical use, and recommend another &#40;NRSV&#41; for in-depth, non liturgical study -- a very decent configuration, since the NKJV preserves much of the reverential language that is desired in liturgical proclamation, while the NRSV presents a more accurate text though lacks certain qualities that one desires in the temple proclamations. I have encountered other parishes, as well, which --with episcopal approval-- have taken on a given edition &#40;e.g. the NRSV&#41; for their liturgical use, but have gone through and changed certain terms here and there to conform to translations used in various Orthodox liturgical books. Thus the NRSV might be used, but Psalm 1 will be pencilled over with corrections. This is another very legitimate approach, given that it is done carefully and under the direct supervision of a qualified bishop.

Through it all, the best advise for most people is to use whatever version is recommended and employed by their parish, such that there is continuity between the Scripture heard in Church and that read at home. For those who have the time, it is exceptionally valuable to supplement this &#39;main version&#39; with another of a very different flavour &#40;thus if one&#39;s parish uses the KJV or NKJV, purchase also a copy of the NRSV; or vice-versa&#41; -- for this allows one to encounter the differences among English translations, and thus begin to see for oneself the variance that often comes from such things. Recognition of the Church&#39;s teaching of the interpretation to be had of Scripture is thus especially appreciated.

INXC, Matthew

[Randall Atherton]

Matthew and all:

There is a bible version that I have used to great benefit as a past &#34;recovering fundemental protestant&#34; that I would like to share.

It is the &#34;Douay-Rheims&#34; version. I know this is the version used by the RC &#40;until Vatican 2&#41;, for hundreds of years, and some of the study notes have a papal bent to be sure, however it is the translation of the Latin Vulgate that St. Jerome conducted from the original great texts.

I have been told for this reason it is the most &#34;accurate&#34; translation into English.


I would welcome comments - I have also found the Orthodox Study Bible &#40;OSB&#41; to be invaluable.

PAX,

Randy Atherton

[sinjin smithe]

I have a question on the LXX or Septuagint translation of the Old Testament. My question is how accurate will that translation be of the Orthodox study bible when it is done?

[Moses Anthony]

Sinjin,
Your question can best be answered, I believe, by the V.Rev.Fr. Jack Sparks, Phd. Dean of the St. Athanasius Academy of Orthodox Theology, and the Project Director for the Orhtodox Study Bible: old Testament Project. When complete it will incorporate &#40;with revisions&#41; the already published Orthodox New Testament w/notes. Contact Fr. Sparks at www.saaot.edu (http://www.saaot.edu). E-mail: osb@saaot.edu
It may not suit everyones tastes, but it should be a whole lot better than nearly everything else offered.

tus

[Gideon]

Why do Orthodox seem to use these versions more often?

[Richard Leigh]

Orthodox in dialogue with the Anglican church over a century ago agreed at some level to use KJV.

Beyong that, there maybe some perception that the NKJV uses the Majority Text, or so-called &#34;Received Text&#34; &#40;I don&#39;t think it does&#41;as the KJV does.

The Orthodox Study Bible, pretty much engineered by the old Evangelical Orthodox &#40;Now part of the Antiochian Archdiocese&#41;chose that version of the NT and Pss.

Holy Apostles Convent and Dormition Skete of Buena Vista Colorado has an excellent translation of The Holy Gospels and The Acts and Epistles&#40;2 Volumes&#41;which uses a text almost identical to the one used by the Greek Church&#40;i.e., the Antoniades edition published by the Holy Synod at Constantinople&#41;on the rare occassion they very, they say so.

That, and this is perhaps more than you wanted to know, but, their website can be found at http://www.BuenaVistaCO.com/GOC

and their e-mail is apostles@amigo.net

And finally, there is a project in the works to translate the OT of the LXX.

Richard

[Fr Averky]

Does anyone have an opinion concerning the NIV, or more recently, the TNIV. I use it personally, but have to mentally change words which have been altered in some way. I use it because it is quite readable.

I do not usually suggest it for others.

Fr. A.

[M.C. Steenberg]

[NOTE: I have moved this emerging discussion on Bible translations to its own thread, as it has the potential to become quite interesting in its own right.]

Dear Father Averky, you wrote:


Does anyone have an opinion concerning the NIV, or more recently, the TNIV. I use it personally, but have to mentally change words which have been altered in some way. I use it because it is quite readable.

With the TNIV I am not familiar, but perhaps I might offer a few thoughts on the NIV. As you are most likely aware, this has become the de facto standard translation for much of the Protestant/Evangelical tradition in the USA, though it has never caught on quite so widely here in the UK.

The NIV is eminently 'readable', and thus its widespread popularity overall. It is the case that most people can sit before the NIV text, or hear it read aloud, and 'understand' what is read; and the text is of such a sort that it is accessible for young people as well as adults. In this latter regard it is particularly notable, given that many of the chief English translations of the past have been either entirely inaccessible to young people (e.g. the KJV, RSV), or have been aimed specifically at young people and thus left adults dry (e.g. the Childrens' Bible). The NIV seems to bridge this gap.

This, however, leads to one of the translation's main problems. Such a focus on 'understandability' and accessibility has led the translators to what must be called 'interpretation' in some of their 'translation', and the expositional method that lies much more pronouncedly behind the so-called 'Good News Bible' (which is a paraphrase or 'amplification', rather than a translation) is also found in the NIV. This is a trait which is much more immediately noticeable to readers who know Greek, where the liberties taken by the NIV translators become more apparent.

A qualification should be made here: the fact that 'bone literal' translation gives way to 'interpreted translation' here and there is not itself a fault -- all translations do this, as well they should, since it is simply not possible always to translate word-for-word and maintain the genuine meaning of a text. It all comes down to the manner and freedom of such interpretive interpolation. One of the great strengths of the NRSV, which is a translation with many problems of its own, is that it makes efforts to identify when it includes interpolations or changes for clarity (we may wish that it did not include some of these; but at least it identifies when and where it does). This is by and large not the case with the NIV, which takes as a basic methodological approach such an interpretive style, and thus does not identify strict translation from intentional interpolation/modification.

My own personal thought, for what it is worth, is that the NIV can be useful when read with caution and an eye towards the above. Especially when one is working with young people, it can be a very helpful tool. But for serious study or contemplation of the Scriptures, it is not the best edition.

INXC, Matthew

[Jeff Johnson]

I see this topic is quite old, but I think it's appropriate to revive it than start a new thread. I was just at a book store and was amazed at the number of Bible translations available. Doing a Google search on Bible translations gave me a couple of web sites that do actual comparisons (advantages and disadvantages) from a Protestant perspective, but I'm curious about the Orthodox perspective on Bible translations. Are there some that are better than others? Some that should absolutely never be used? A priest's input would especially be appreciated. Here are some of the translations I am aware of...

KJV, NKJV, Revised Standard Version, NRSV, Amplified Bible, New Living Translation, Holman Christian Standard Bible, Today's English Version, New American Bible, Douay-Rheims Version, Jerusalem Bible, New International Version (arguably the most popular among U.S. Protestants).

The list could probably go on, but those are the ones I know of. I own a King James, Douay-Rheims (actually, this one was hard to find), Oxford Annotated Bible (RSV), NRSV, plus an NIV and NKJV New Testament. I know my hierarch (Met. Isaiah of Denver) upholds the KJV, and dislikes both the RSV and NRSV, as well as the NIV.

I think that an Orthodox Bible printed in one volume (not in 2, 3, or more) would be quite helpful.

[Peter Farrington]

I have recently given a version called 'The Message' to some young folk, not because I thought it was the best or most accurate version for serious study or liturgical use but because it was very accessible and I wanted them to develop a love for the Scriptures and use them on a regular basis.

In fact putting aside my rather sniffy attitude to anything likely to be popular I actually found it very useful for myself because the text came alive. I would not use it often myself, but maybe that is the value of having several versions, we can then use the ones that are appropriate in different circumstances.

I used to read a version of the Gospels that was only separated into Chapters and not verses, and that was also instructive because it changed my relationship with the text from one with individual verses to a whole passage.

Peter

[Father David Moser]

Jeff,

I'm wondering if you read back through the nearly 50 entries on this topic yet. I think there is a lot there that will help answer your question about the various pro's and con's of various translations.

There seems to be a consensus among the English speaking Church in North America to use the KJV or NKJV for public reading (there is a really nice entry in this thread by Mr Dunn on the auditory aspect of the KJV). For the OT, pending the release of the Antiochian Archdiocese translation of the Septuagint (in the linguistic style of the NKJV), I think the Douay-Rhiems provides the closest available readable English text of the OT.

In having skimmed through the thread, I would like to ask Matthew (and all the other Greek scholars) a question about the Greek texts of the NT. You asserted that the Received Text was actually inferior to the other major Greek texts in use today (which for most English translations means the Nestle/Aland text). Do you still hold that position? I realize that the Received text is not the same as that used in the Greek Church today however I have always thought that the Received was closer to it than the Nestle? I am more than willing to change my perception here, but I would like a little clarification. Also, from a textual pov, do you have an opinion on the Dormition Skete translation of the NT? The readability is difficult, but how is M. Miriam for accuracy? Although I was unable to find anything specifically stating which text she used, I suspect it is the 1904 Antoniades. For someone ignorant in Greek, like me, how does Antoniades compare with Nestle?

Enough for now, perhaps I will have more questions later.

Fr David Moser

[Jeff Johnson]

Thank you, Father, for your input. I basically wanted a priest's opinion, although much was said above that was interesting and helpful. I was thinking some Orthodox might shun the D-R Bible as a "Papist" translation, but the Vulgate is of course older than the Schism. I have noticed some of its footnotes give helpful explanations, and it is poetic if not at times hard to understand (I think it's also the only Bible version Super Traditionalist, SSPX type Catholics will touch). As mentioned before, my Bishop pushes the KJV, which is strange considering what people here are saying of its failures.

My spiritual father had me purchase the NT on cassette, KJV read by Alexander Scourby. Hearing the scriptures on tape really makes them come alive.

A monastic community I made contact with recently uses the Coverdale Psalter in its services.

I guess any Bible, even if corrupted in ways, is better than nothing, so long as it isn't the New World Translation!!! (I actually bought one at a rummage sale years ago, not realizing who published it. I think I destroyed it when I found out.)


Met. Isaiah's article about Bible translations:

http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/bible_texts.html


Another Orthodox Bible link:

http://www.holy-trinity.org/liturgics/nrsv.html


A comparison of translations by a Protestant minister:

http://www.kencollins.com/bible-t2.htm

[Scott Pierson]

I was thinking some Orthodox might shun the D-R Bible as a "Papist" translation, but the Vulgate is of course older than the Schism.The D.R. is one of my favorite translations. I've read most every major English translation and none of them speak to me the same way as the D.R. and I use it for my daily readings.

[Joseph A.]

Any opinions on the Third Millennium Bible? Seems quite complete, and with the KJV style of writing. Still trying to pick out which Bible to make my "primary."

Here's a link to its website:
http://www.tmbible.com/

Thank you for any advice you can provide.

Joseph

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Personally I use the NKJV as an alternative to the KJV. It is accurate but more comprehensible to those whose first language is not English (like many in our parish).

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Mikhail Kolitwenzew]

That's a coincidence, i just chose to read the Third Millenium Bible as my main Bible.
I have many Bibles to choose from, and i've had enough of having to think about which Bible translation I think I should read. Its driving me nuts. You can't memorize the Bible without using a main translation.

But the #1 reason why I chose it is because I have a KJV Audio-Bible which helps me to memorize it. Secondly: I like the old english language. Thirdly: the translation is just classic. Fourthly: the Deuterocanonical books are there, especially the Wisdom of Sirach. Fifthly: Its really simple to read.


Because, "So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (Romans 10:17)


Audio Bibles are great. I have over 4 on my Computer, and on my mp3 player I have some.


This guys voice really invigorates the New Testament: http://www.audiotreasure.com/KJV/index.htm

Thats the New Testament, I found the entire audio-bible here:

http://www.kickasstorrents.com/audio-bible-king-james-version-old-new-testament-audiotreasure-c-t608273.html

If you know how to download torrent files.

[Mikhail Kolitwenzew]

Its a good Bible. Fr. Thomas Hopko really recommends the The New Oxford Annotated RSV though. I never bought it, i've bought enough Bibles.

In his new series of talks, "How To Read The Bible" he tells us that he really recommends it, here:

http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/hopko/how_to_read_the_bible

And, "The Old Testament" http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/hopko/reading_the_old_testament