Orthodox NT in two volumes

[J. A. McIntyre]

http://www.holyapostlesconvent.org/HacWebStore/product_reviews_info.php?products_id=8&reviews_id=4&osCsid=e517cf8f75fb9a540bbeffa6fc3b40c8

[Kris]

I would also highly recommend this excellent two-volume set. It is the only Orthodox translation of the NT into English, being extremely faithful to the original Greek and reflecting a thoroughly Orthodox understanding of the Holy Scriptures.

The commentary is particularly helpful, being taken almost entirely from the writings of the Holy Fathers. The commentary in the first volume (Gospels) is particularly extensive. The commentary in volume two is not quite as extensive, but what's there is great.

I've found it preferable to the OSB, which I find is often over-simplified, lacking in patristic commentary and seems to be aimed at American Protestants interested in Orthodoxy, rather than those of us who are already Orthodox. Not that the OSB is bad; I just think the ONT is better.


I believe Mr. Steenberg has taken part in the new OSB translation of the LXX into English; a much needed project I am extremely excited about. I think we all owe him and the others working on this project a great deal of gratitude for making this translation available.

I would like to ask how similar, in terms of footnotes, articles, and "target audience" the Old Testament study Bible will be to the New Testament and Psalms?

Also, do you know whether it is still scheduled to be released by Pascha 2007?

In XC,
Kris

[J. A. McIntyre]

Thanks Kris, I hit enter before I could ask what everything thought of it, but it seems you are able to read minds! Thanks again.

[Herman Blaydoe]

While I certainly agree that the inclusion of the commentaries of the Fathers is very helpful, calling this an "Orthodox translation" is a little bit of a stretch. What they have actually done is simply taken the KJV and "corrected" it in places to a more literal translation from the Greek, which leads to some rather awkward, if more technically "correct", reading.

[Peter Farrington]

Thanks for the info Herman. I did wonder how this could be an 'Orthodox' translation, as I thought that most, though not all, translations were trying to be accurate and truthful, which means Orthodox surely.

If an Orthodox translation required 'adjusting' the text then I'd no more want to use it than the New World translation.

But the Commentary might be useful. Do you know the Intervarsity Commentaries of the Fathers (or whatever) series? Is this NT as good as them?

Peter

[Kris]

While I certainly agree that the inclusion of the commentaries of the Fathers is very helpful, calling this an "Orthodox translation" is a little bit of a stretch. What they have actually done is simply taken the KJV and "corrected" it in places to a more literal translation from the Greek, which leads to some rather awkward, if more technically "correct", reading.

It is not correct to say that it is merely a revised version of the KJV. It was done "from scratch" so to speak, and the Greek manuscripts used in this translation are those officially authorised by the Great Church of Constantinople, and as such differ from the KJV in a number of ways (compare the Apocalypse for example).



I did wonder how this could be an 'Orthodox' translation, as I thought that most, though not all, translations were trying to be accurate and truthful, which means Orthodox surely.


Translation will always mean interpretation. There are many words, expressions, etc. in the Greek that can be interpreted a number of different ways in English.

Protestant translations will naturally reflect a Protestant understanding of the text (even if its unintentional). In this translation, words and passages are rendered in light of the faith of the Church.



If an Orthodox translation required 'adjusting' the text then I'd no more want to use it than the New World translation.


I was not, of course, speaking of changing the text or its meaning. Rather, I was speaking of the text being rendered as accurately as possible; not being subject to Catholic and Protestant bias as found in other translations.

I am sure it contains many errors (and I believe the use of archaic English was a mistake), but it seems superior to any other English translation I have come accross.

In XC,
Kris

[Peter Farrington]

Hi Kris

Can you think of particular passages as examples, even one, as I'd like to compare them in all the different versions of the NT I have access to.

Best wishes

Peter

[Kris]

Can you think of particular passages as examples, even one, as I'd like to compare them in all the different versions of the NT I have access to.


Hi,

Did you want examples of differences between the manuscripts used, or in renderings?

I suppose Luke 2:22 is one example. The KJV and NKJV read "her purification", whereas the ONT (and most other modern translations) reads "their purification."

Whereas the ONT rendering makes it a general reference to the days of purification as observed by the Jews, the KJV rendering makes it a specific reference to the blessed Theotokos which has a direct impact on Mariology.

Then there is Luke 23:42. The ONT reads "Remember me, O Lord, when Thou comest in Thy kingdom." Most other translations render "eis" as into (follwing the Latin Vulgate) rather than in.

Its an example that comes to mind because Fr. Ephrem Lash mentions it in his review of the OSB, stating that Christ coming in His kindom is a refrence to the Second Coming. Such an interpretation is not possible when the word "into" is used.

One could also mention how the Greek tenses are preserved in the ONT. Compare for example Luke 8:50, "Cease being afraid" (ONT) to "Fear not" (KJV). Or Luke 8:49, "Do not be troubling the Teacher" (ONT) to "Trouble not the Master" (KJV). Or Romans 6:12 "Therefore let not sin be reigning in your mortal body" (ONT) to "Let not sin, therefore, reign in your mortal body" (KJV).

An example of differences in manuscripts is Apocalypse 1:8: '"I am the Alpha and the Omega," saith the Lord God, "the One Who is and the One Who was and the One coming, the Almighty."' (ONT). Compare that to the KJV's 'I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.'

Not sure if these were the kind of examples you had in mind.

In XC,
Kris

[Father David Moser]

calling this an "Orthodox translation" is a little bit of a stretch. What they have actually done

There is no "they" where this translation is involved. This is a one woman project - the entire thing, the translation, the annotation, etc was done by a single nun. A huge undertaking to be sure, however, there is still the issue that there is only one opinion expressed. Having known her, I can say that in my opinion, M. Maria is a wonderful person and a good nun, and she is certainly conversant in Greek and a lifelong Orthodox Christian, however, there is still the lack of consensus that is a characteristic of any "one person" work. This does not make the work any less valuable - it is one of the best options out there - but it only points up the need for a little context.

Fr David Moser

[Robert Rager]

There is no "they" where this translation is involved. This is a one woman project - the entire thing, the translation, the annotation, etc was done by a single nun. A huge undertaking to be sure, however, there is still the issue that there is only one opinion expressed. Having known her, I can say that in my opinion, M. Maria is a wonderful person and a good nun, and she is certainly conversant in Greek and a lifelong Orthodox Christian, however, there is still the lack of consensus that is a characteristic of any "one person" work. This does not make the work any less valuable - it is one of the best options out there - but it only points up the need for a little context.

Fr David Moser

A good point to keep in mind. Thanks