New 'Eastern Orthodox Bible'

[Christophoros]

Is anyone familiar with the newly-released "Eastern/Greek Orthodox Bible", which is a new translation of the authorized Greek New Testament text published by the Ecumenical Patriarchate in 1904, combined with an "updated" Brenton Septuagint Old Testament text?

http://www.orthodox-church.info/eob/index.asp

[Effie Ganatsios]

Thank you Christophoros for posting this link. I have just downloaded St. John in PDF form and then filed it in text form. Easy and quick.



Effie

[Michael Stickles]

My thanks for the link as well. It will be interesting to compare their OT with the Orthodox Study Bible, once both are out.

Mike

[Christophoros]

One thing to keep in mind about the EOB: apparently it is still subject to revision by its editors, and they are openly soliciting help with this from professionals and non-professionals. It's publisher, Lulu.com, is an "on-demand" printer that allows constant editing of its books; hence, the version you buy today may not be identical to the version available next month. From the EOB website: "All interested, especially Orthodox Christians and even more especially clergy and scholars are invited to contribute to the ongoing improvement process. New revisions are uploaded every month and submitted to the print on demand process to ensure immediate availability in the printed edition. To participate, please download the files in a suitable format (DOC or PDF) and use them as a foundation for your revision work if you are 'adopting' and [sic] entire book. For short corrections, please send an email to the editor. If you would like to adopt an entire book or submit an article for including in the EOB, please notify the editor of your intentions. This will limit the risk of multiple volunteers overwriting their corrections in the same book."

The three volumes which make up the complete Bible will cost around $100. If I were to invest that much money in a Bible, I would hope it would be a final edition, not a near-final draft.

[Christophoros]

The final, corrected edition of The Eastern / Greek Orthodox Bible - New Testament has been released, in both hard and soft cover:

http://www.orthodox-church.info/eob/

[Father David Moser]

So who are these guys? I have not found any kind of hierarchal blessing or endorsement of any kind on the website. Is this something that is being done independently of the Church by Orthodox people, or is there a bishop to whom the editors are responsible for their work?

Fr David Moser

[Christophoros]

So who are these guys? I have not found any kind of hierarchal blessing or endorsement of any kind on the website. Is this something that is being done independently of the Church by Orthodox people, or is there a bishop to whom the editors are responsible for their work?

Fr David Moser

From what I can tell, its a completely private project. However, after purchasing several revisions of the work, I can't help but notice it is very poorly edited, with numerous errors, typos, and deviations from the Patriarchal text. In fact, a couple hours after the editor sent out a group email announcing the "final" edition, more typos were discovered.

I think Peter Papoutsis is participating in some way, but I'm not sure in what capacity.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I am very, very much not an expert on Scripture translations. But if I could suggest the following:

For the past while I have been reading through the OT using both the Orthodox Study Bible & the New English Translation. I have found that if you read these two translations side by side it really helps. For further clarification I also keep open a copy of a standard translation (l like the NAS but that's just me). I have found that this method of reading the Scripture is very helpful.

By the way although I think the NETS version would be problematic as a liturgical version (it's operating premise is to present the original text as far as this can be determined rather than the liturgically redacted text; eg in Gen 1:2 the OSB has: "The Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the water", while NETS has: "a divine wind was being carried along over the water.") as a text to supplement the OSB I think it is very helpful. For example where substantially alternative texts of the LXX exist NETS shows these side by side on one page (in some cases the alternative text has additions missing from the other so these differences can be important). NETS also shows any differences in verse & chapter numbering from the Masoretic text by placing the MT verse number in brackets beside the LXX numbering. This allows you to be aware of the differences between the two versions while reading the LXX.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Evan]

So, wait a minute.

Is there a Bible in circulation that can be considered the "official," really and truly Orthodox, English translation?

Also, it's my understanding that this new Bible is not the same as the much-maligned Peter Papoutsis release.

[Eric Peterson]

Evan,

No, there is no official English Orthodox Bible. Neither the Orthodox Study Bible, Eastern Orthodox Bible, or Holy Orthodox Bible or the one put out by Dormition Skete, which for now is just New Testament, or even the Holy Transfiguration Psalter or the other numerous Orthodox Psalters or any of the Gospel or Epistle books have all these qualifications:

1) They are translated by recognized Orthodox scholars under episcopal supervision

2) The translation is from the official Greek version (yes, there are several of those--that would have to be determined what text to translate)

3) The translation has a blessing by a Holy Synod for personal and/or liturgical use.

Some translations out there have one or two of these, but are not universally used and/or recognized in the English-speaking part of the Church, and none meet all three criteria.

Besides the above criteria (which I chose arbitrarily, I admit), there is also the issue of who is doing the translation. Granted, a person can be Orthodox, but what is his or her manner of life, is personal opinion trumping tradition in the translation, how are the translations vetted?

I think it's going to take a lot more time to have a good, solidly Orthodox translation of the Orthodox scriptures.

[Kris]

Also, it's my understanding that this new Bible is not the same as the much-maligned Peter Papoutsis release.

Much-maligned by whom? I would be interested in hearing the various objections to his translation.

[Evan]

Kris,

It's my understanding -- and I don't pretend any specific knowledge-- that he released his translation sequentially, and numerous typographical errors and deviations from Patriarchal text cropped up with the successive releases. You'd have to ask somebody more versed on the subject-- that's just word of mouth.

Eric,

That is indeed unfortunate, as I cannot read the orginal Greek, and, frankly, doubt that I ever will be able to. I'm surprised that there isn't an Orthodox equivalent to the Rheims-Douay Vulgate translation. Actually, given the impetus behind that effort, I'm not-- no Counter-Reformation to create an urgent need for an Orthodox Bible.

Still... which of the lot would you recommend for an inquirer?

[Eric Peterson]

The translation that I've seen most often recommended for English-speaking Orthodox is the Revised Standard Version with Apocrypha. This will have all the books in it, as long as you don't get the Catholic one.

As for an Orthodox equivalent of the Douay-Rheims, one doesn't exist, but I don't think this is because of there being no Orthodox Counter Reformation, but the Eastern Patriarchates didn't have a common, standard text. That's the problem when you have the original manuscripts, products of centuries of copyists, there are lots of versions, but when you make a translation, you bring those versions together into one text.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I have been coming to the conclusion that the Orthodox understanding of the canon of Scripture is quite fluid but within certain parameters.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Ryan]

As for an Orthodox equivalent of the Douay-Rheims, one doesn't exist, but I don't think this is because of there being no Orthodox Counter Reformation, but the Eastern Patriarchates didn't have a common, standard text.

My understanding is that the Douay-Rheims is simply a translation of the Vulgate. If I'm not mistaken, the Vulgate is legitimate from an Orthodox perspective, and was translated by a recognized saint of the church. So, barring any Papist biases that may crop up (I don't know, haven't read the Douay-Rheims myself) what would prevent Orthodox from simply using the Douay-Rheims?

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

My understanding is that the Douay-Rheims is simply a translation of the Vulgate. If I'm not mistaken, the Vulgate is legitimate from an Orthodox perspective, and was translated by a recognized saint of the church. So, barring any Papist biases that may crop up (I don't know, haven't read the Douay-Rheims myself) what would prevent Orthodox from simply using the Douay-Rheims?

I speak as someone who is not at all an expert on the issue of versions of the Bible & translations.

But Patristic precedent is to use such versions as comparative. The Hebrew and Peshitta would also be helpful in this same way.

One very important distinction we need to keep continually in mind however is that for us Scripture has always been primarily used in a liturgical setting. This is why we strive for an authoritative version as blessed by the church we are part of.

But for exegetical purposes we at times refer to the versions mentioned above. This could also of course be part of what we now call 'private reading' but which I suspect in past Patristic times was seen as part of exegesis,ie spiritual understanding of the Scripture according to the standards of the Church.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Kris]

and deviations from Patriarchal text

Is there a Patriarchal LXX? I thought the Patriarchal text referred only to the 1904 approved text of the New Testament.

[Isa Almisry]

My understanding is that the Douay-Rheims is simply a translation of the Vulgate. If I'm not mistaken, the Vulgate is legitimate from an Orthodox perspective, and was translated by a recognized saint of the church. So, barring any Papist biases that may crop up (I don't know, haven't read the Douay-Rheims myself) what would prevent Orthodox from simply using the Douay-Rheims?

The translation is biased, and wooden with Latinisms, but the real problem is the edition usually published is the one edited by Bishop Challoner, who stuck in a lot of "notes." Case in point, the mistranslation of Gen. 3:15


15 I will put enmities between thee and the woman (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05646b.htm), and thy seed (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04710a.htm) and her seed (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm): she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel. She shall crush... Ipsa, the woman (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05646b.htm); so divers of the fathers (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06001a.htm) read this place, conformably to the Latin (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09019a.htm): others read it ipsum, viz., the seed. The sense is the same: for it is by her seed, Jesus Christ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm), that the woman (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05646b.htm) crushes the serpent's (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04764a.htm) head.

One can see how this plays in the Vatican pronouncement of the Immaculate Conception (which cites this as scriptural "proof") and the clamoring for the coredemtrix title.

The text is online, so you can check it out for yourself.

Now that we have a number of LXX translations to choose, there is no reason to use the Vulgate or the DR, which are based on the MT anyway.

[Andreas Moran]

If I'm not mistaken, the Vulgate is legitimate from an Orthodox perspective, and was translated by a recognized saint of the church.

I read recently that St Jerome was criticised by, amongst others, St Augustine for referring too much to Hebrew texts and not sticking to the Greek LXX.

[Christophoros]

I read recently that St Jerome was criticised by, amongst others, St Augustine for referring too much to Hebrew texts and not sticking to the Greek LXX.

I have read the same, and that the Old Testament readings of St. Jerome produced discontent among certain believers. However, it should be kept in mind that the Hebrew texts used by St. Jerome predate the arguably corrupt Masoretic texts.

[Kusanagi]

Can anyone tell me please which translation is more accurate translation:

http://www.orthodox-church.info/eob/index.asp

or the one from the Apostles Convent?

http://www.holyapostlesconvent.org/HacWebStore/index.php?cPath=1_2&osCsid=fc833a629c098db9ad3bfa884c73ac9b

[Eric Peterson]

Also, I believe there is doubt amongst scholars over how much Hebrew St. Jerome knew.

The Stuttgart Latin Vulgate of the United Bible Society aims to put together the earliest manuscripts of the Latin bible.

[Patrick Lee]

Slightly off topic, but does anyone know where I can buy a print version of the 1904 text? I have found places to download it from, but I'm after a bound copy.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Can anyone tell me please which translation is more accurate translation:

http://www.orthodox-church.info/eob/index.asp

or the one from the Apostles Convent?

http://www.holyapostlesconvent.org/HacWebStore/index.php?cPath=1_2&osCsid=fc833a629c098db9ad3bfa884c73ac9b

Hmm, not sure how I missed this originally, but to be quite frank, they both have their issues. I don't know that I would elevate one over the other.

Herman the "all things being equal" Pooh

[Kosta]

Im familiar with the Orthodox New Testament 2vol set by Holy Apostles Convent. The translation gives you a unique perspective not found in any other translation. Of course Mother Mary who was the primary translator ,is not a scholar. I have problems in her explanation that the greek word 'makaria' translated in english as bless simply means 'happy', (the word used in LK: Henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. etc.) This isnt true, so it should not be considered error-proof.

What it does excel in is that it has much commentary all based on the Church Fathers, thus i view this study bible as superior to the OSB.

[Fred B.]

I don't have anything scholarly to say about the EOB New Testament (which I purchased around Oct 2010), and it is my first "Orthodox" New Testament, so I don't have much to compare it to. What I can say is that I have enjoy reading it more than the other translations I have read (NASB, NIV, KJV), and I have found the notes and appendices to be helpful as a new convert.

I plan on purchasing the OSB as soon as possible as well. Nearly everyone in my parish reads it, and enjoys it greatly.

[Effie Ganatsios]

I have had the Orthodox Study Bible for about 2 years now. I have found that the English translations from the Greek text are more accurate than other translations.



A recent example
Psalm 115
I believed and therefore I spoke, but I was sore troubled : I said in my haste, All men are liars.

Greek
Ε πιστευσα, διο ελαλησα, εγω δε εταπεινωθην σφοδρα.
Εγω δε ειπα εν τη εκστασει μου, Πας ανθρωπος ψευστης.

Orthodox Study Bible

I believed; therefore, I spoke:
I was greatly humbled.I said in my ecstasy, Every man is a liar.

The words "humbled" instead of "sore troubled" and "ecstasy" instead of "in my haste" are the right words.

The Revised standard version (Psalm 116 10:19) is even more inaccurate than the first translation.

Effie

[Ryan]

I have had the Orthodox Study Bible for about 2 years now. I have found that the English translations from the Greek text are more accurate than other translations.



A recent example
Psalm 115
I believed and therefore I spoke, but I was sore troubled : I said in my haste, All men are liars.

Greek
Ε πιστευσα, διο ελαλησα, εγω δε εταπεινωθην σφοδρα.
Εγω δε ειπα εν τη εκστασει μου, Πας ανθρωπος ψευστης.

Orthodox Study Bible

I believed; therefore, I spoke:
I was greatly humbled.I said in my ecstasy, Every man is a liar.

The words "humbled" instead of "sore troubled" and "ecstasy" instead of "in my haste" are the right words.

The Revised standard version (Psalm 116 10:19) is even more inaccurate than the first translation.

Effie

These other translations are not based on the Greek. They may well be faithful representations of the Masoretic Hebrew.

[Effie Ganatsios]

These other translations are not based on the Greek. They may well be faithful representations of the Masoretic Hebrew.

Ryan, can you give me an example of this, preferably the above lines from Psalm 11(116).

Thanks
Effie

I found the answer myself. Please see my next message.

[Effie Ganatsios]

These other translations are not based on the Greek. They may well be faithful representations of the Masoretic Hebrew.

You are right Ryan. The English translation in my "Divine Liturgy explained by Rev. Nicholas M. Elias" is accurate. (this is the English text I posted at the beginning of my original message).

The Revised Standard Version is different altogether :
"I kept my faith, even when I said,
"I am greatly afflicted";
I said in my consternation,
"Men are all a vain hope."


The following is the translation of Psalm 115 (116 verses 10-16) from Hebrew into English :

10 I trusted even when I spoke: 'I am greatly afflicted.'
11 I said in my haste: 'All men are liars.'


.

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt26b6.htm



The following is from the introduction to the Orthodox Study Bible.

"Secondly, Thomas Nelson publishers granted use of the Old Testament text of the New King James Version in the places where the English translation of the Septuagint LXX would match that of the Masoretic (Hebrew) test. The development team at St. Athansius Academy carefully studied these sources, aslong with other documents, to produce an English Old Testament text suitable for the project."

Some additional information concerning the Greek translation can be found below :

"The Septuagint (pronounced /ˈsɛptuː.ədʒɪnt/), or simply "LXX", referred to in critical works by the abbreviation ,[1] is the Koine Greek version of the Hebrew Bible, translated in stages between the 3rd and 2nd century BCE in Alexandria.[2] It was begun by the 3rd century BCE and completed before 132 BCE.[3]

It is the oldest of several ancient translations of the Hebrew Bible into Greek, lingua franca of the eastern Mediterranean Basin from the time of Alexander the Great (356-323 BCE)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint



Translations are confusing and I often wonder why people quarrel over different interpretations of the words of the Bible when what they're reading may not be 100% accurate.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Translations are confusing and I often wonder why people quarrel over different interpretations of the words of the Bible when what they're reading may not be 100% accurate.

I think this happens Effie because we do not realize that there is no such thing as a basic authoritative text for the whole of Scripture. Thus for example there is no one LXX covering all of the books of the OT. What we have right now and what we translate from are varying Greek manuscripts. Each has variations and at times these are quite large. For example the two surviving LXX versions of Tobit are called GI & GII. GII is about 1700 words longer than GI. Of course the question is about the relationship between these two versions; but the difference between these isn't just passages left out. The very wording itself between the two is different at points. So what we read in our Bibles, what looks to us as if there is one authoritative version is the more result of a choice made by the publishers between manuscripts and versions to use.

Also, we often do not understand that translating itself is not an absolute science. For example we referred here the other day to Psalm 22, vs 1. In Slavonic this says: Господь пасет мя. If you look in a dictionary however пасет (from пасти) doesn't just mean 'shepherds'. It can also mean 'to graze', 'to feed' 'to pasture'. Only context brings this to 'shepherds' and then I suspect this word is also strongly influenced for English translators by the KJV.

Lastly, the most frequent basis for approving of a certain version is that we like what we hear. 'I like very much the latest version of the LXX'. Often though this is said without reference to the original underlying version. What did it say? What does it sound like? Possibly if we went from this direction first we'd understand that the original itself contains many questions within itself; that there are unclear passages and words. And that Scriptural understanding is always an ascetic exercise.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Joel B]

It's been a few years, but I really appreciated Everett Fox's 'The Five Books of Moses (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0805211195/ref=s9_simh_gw_p14_d0_i1?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=1XYCMT6V92T67W37HKKR&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=470938631&pf_rd_i=507846)'. Does anyone know of any helpful Orthodox critiques of his translation?

Joel