My Orthodox brothers Felix Culpa and Esteban will both be commenting on the Orthodox Study Bible in coming days. I recommend you to check their blogs for their insightful critiques. I think this will be the last post of mine dealing more than in passing with the new Orthodox Study Bible. I’ve noted a few more problems with this Bible, two of which are “deal breakers” which, for me, means it will join its predecessor and various other study Bibles to collect dust. This is unfortunate, as some of the translated texts are done quite well. The problem is that not all of them are, and that the presentation in this volume inadequately reflects the nobility of the subject matter. Let us cut to the chase!
On Tobit. There are two texts of Tobit, the short text as found in the majority of manuscripts (Hanhart’s GI, found in Codices Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, and others, as well as represented in Jerome’s Vulgate translation), and the long text (Hanhart’s GII, found in Codex Sinaiticus with lacunae, and a few fragments otherwise, but well-represented in the Old Latin translation). The GII text is universally recognized to the be the older of the two, with GI representing a later reworking of the text. In such a case, the presentation of both versions or the longer alone (perhaps with an indication of which passages are lacking in the shorter version) would be preferable. While it is known that the text of Codex Alexandrinus is the Old Testament in favor on Mount Athos, and so the shorter version of Tobit will be preferred there, there is no canonical statement finding for either ancient text. The fuller text does tell the story better, however, and for that reason alone it might be preferred. But it appears that the Revised Standard Version was the boilerplate in the books called anaginōskomena (“readable”) among the Orthodox and “apocrypha” generally, and the RSV used the shorter text. Again, the NETS actually provides translations of both texts in parallel, as it does for the case of all such divergent texts in the Septuagint tradition: in Iesous (Joshua), Judges, Esther (giving the Old Greek and the Alpha text, which is a bonus!), Tobit (the GII and GI texts), Sousanna, Daniel, Bel and the Dragon (all three have both Old Greek and Theodotion). The approach of NETS is preferable.
Regarding the notes in the OSB, I thought I’d take a look at something which would naturally have occurred to a good editor: to make certain that the points made in the articles about various texts were also included in the notes to those texts. Here too the OSB makes a failing grade. Take, for example, the article “Types of Mary in the Old Testament.” Firstly, why just “Mary” and not a properly Orthodox reference to the Champion of the Faithful like “The Virgin Mary Theotokos”? How about even “Mary, Mother of God”? Oh, that’s right, I forgot that this OSB is actually directed at Protestants, not Orthodox, so we couldn’t possibly call her what we actually call her in what is supposed to be our own Bible! Secondly, of the eighteen Scriptural references given in the article, ten are not represented in the notes to those texts. That is, at those points in the notes, where a reader is most likely to be looking for information on how the Orthodox Church reads the verse, there is no notice that these various ten verses are read to reflect the Theotokos. Even aside from this, and it really is unforgivable, Isaiah 7 and 9 are not included in the article! How can the primary prophecy of the Theotokos in Isaiah 7.14, recognized even in the Gospels, not be included in an article on the subject? That’s laughable! Likewise, there are many other references which were not included. The author of the article could simply have sat down with an annotated copy of the services for the Church’s Feasts, like The Festal Menaion put together by Bishop Kallistos, and made a list of all the Scripture readings and allusions therein and made sure the editor would ensure appropriate commentary in the notes for each. This would’ve taken mere minutes, not hours or days. In addition to this shortcoming in this particular article, there is another shortcoming, a more literal one: the text of no article fills the page dedicated to it. It appears that the font of the articles was changed along the line somewhere so that it is smaller and no longer fills the page. This is sloppy. The extra space could’ve been used to better the articles.
Randomly flipping through the OSB, I found that a number of notes are problematic in historical or factual matters. A note to Isaiah 22.1-5 indicates “Jerusalem fell to the Assyrians.” This is not the case. A note to 2 Kingdoms 15.7-12 (the text of 15.7 begins “Four years later…”) reads “After four years (the LXX has “forty”)….” So, this quite apparently answers our question as to whether this is a translation of the Septuagint or not. Clearly it is not! It is guided by other motivations, which allowed some of the translators to adjust their text toward the Hebrew. This is not in itself a bad idea, but it is not what the Old Testaement of the OSB (or rather the “St. Athanasius Academy Septuagint™” [sic and barf]) proclaims itself to be. The note to Judith 1.1 places the entire book in the wrong light: “This opening verse is anachronistic in that the father of Nebuchadnezzar, Nebopolassar, destroyed Nineveh in about 607 BC.” Aside from the error that Nineveh was not destroyed in “about 607″ but 612 BC, with no “about” about it, and the oddly spelled Nebopolassar rather than the standard Nabopolassar, this misses the entire point of the book in its parabolic masking of various historical characters with names drawn from the rest of the Old Testament, of which Judith is a part. Nineveh represents Seleucia, and Nebuchadnezzar the Seleucid king, and so on. Reading this as a straight historical account is as much a mistake as reading it as an entirely allegorical one. Bad form! A relatively good note appears at Daniel 5.2: “St. Jerome remarks that ‘vice always glories in defiling what is noble.’ He sees in Belshazzar’s blatant misuse of the holy vessels a type of the misuse and twisting of Scripture by heretics for the purpose of drawing others into false doctrine and worship.” Now that is on the right track, at least. Yet there is no way to find out where St Jerome elaborates on this, as there is no reference to his undoubtedly pithy statement on the matter. It would perhaps have been preferable to leave out the vast number of inane notes in preference for more substantial patristic quotations which included references to the works (at the very least!) in which they appear. But I tire of this.
There are some very good translations in the OSB Old Testament. Isaiah and Job are quite well done, as is Jeremiah. I haven’t delved too much into others, as this edition is not conducive to reading. Most of the Prophets suffer from the serious drawback that their texts are not presented (I kid you not) in poetic scansion. The lines are all run together as though everything in them were prose. And the density of this font in combination with the close line spacing and the thin paper (with its subsequent bleedthrough) makes for very uncomfortable reading indeed. For me, this is one of the “deal breakers” I mentioned above. For whatever reason the verses weren’t presented in poetic format, the verdict is the same: poorly done indeed!
Add to this the occasion that the very complicated issues of verse numbering in various books have received the least useful solution in this OSB: that of creating a versification unused by anyone else, and probably not even by all the annotators in the volume! This is the other “deal breaker” I mentioned. This is wholly unacceptable and unjustifiable. A better solution, again, is presented in the NETS: the versification of the standard editions is retained, and the versification of the Hebrew text is indicated in small raised parentheses.
Readers will need to follow the progress of the other Orthodox Septuagint translation projects in order to eventually obtain a decent Orthodox translation of the Church’s Old Testament. The OSB is not that. In the meantime, I would continue to recommend the NETS. While it may not be a perfect translation, and it is an academic translation geared toward usefulness as a tool in better understanding the underlying Greek texts, it is still of a higher consistent quality than is the OSB. If a reader wants to read a contemporary English translation of the Septuagint, then the NETS edition is the one to read.
Iyov, the “liberal” versus “conservative” regarding translations is just stuff I’ve heard others use. Traditionalist Catholics, for instance, avoid the NAB, calling it “liberal”, preferring the Douai-Rheims translation as “conservative” (and as based directly on the Latin). Among the Eastern Orthodox, the the RSV is considered more “conservative” than the NRSV, which is labeled as “liberal” particularly for its gender-neutral language, and for various translational choices. It’s a wider perception among users that the theological and academic issues driving a particular translation are sourced in a liberal or conservative worldview.
What I find actually funny is that the RSV, which was tossed into book burning pyres soon after its publication because of its translation of Isaiah 7.14, and decried as liberal (in that bad way, like women wearing their skirt-hems above the knee or men walking about in public without a hat!) quite loudly, is now in a different generation considered a conservative translation!
Burgeon may be dated in some respects, but most of what he says about Wescott and Hort’s text and theories is still spot on, and a devastating critique. Have you read any of his works? I would strongly recommend them. His comments on the ending of Mark have been largely echoed by William Farmer, in his book on the same subject.
The argument that St. Cyprian did not quote this reading, because the reading did not exist in his time is a case of question begging. You concede that a Spanish heretic quoted it in the fourth century. Obviously, if he quoted in the fourth century, he did so from some text which at least some people accepted as authoritative. There is no reason to believe that this reading did not exist in some manuscripts in St. Cyprian’s day.
The translation of Genesis 1:2 does say something about the Holy Spirit, and they are saying something about the Holy Spirit by translating it they way they do. I never said that the fact that the translators of the NETS were heretics made the text unusable. It is their heretical translation which intentionally flies in the face of 2,000 years of Church Tradition that makes the text unusable.
The Johannine Comma is at worst a pious insertion into the text of something that is completely consistent with Orthodox theology. The NETS reading in Genesis 1:2 is a heretical distortion of the text.
I don’t consider the RSV a conservative translation by any stretch. It is certainly not as bad as many, but it was certainly done by scholars of a primarily liberal bent… and by at least one non-Christian. The NRSV is worse of course, and I suppose the New World Translation is worse still… but since there are far better options, why use either one? The OSB may not be perfect, and perhaps a better option will be published at some point… but at this point it is the best option in English, and it would be far more productive to focus on what can make it better than to dismiss it, and promote a far worse text. I plan on getting a copy of the NETS for reference, and for that purpose, I think it is fine. But to suggest a typical laymen rely on such a translation as a primary translation of the Old Testament is very misguided in my opinion.
As for what is considered liberal or conservative, one must keep in mind that this is always relative to something else. Stalin was probably a conservative compared to Trotsky, but both were radicals in comparison with almost anyone else outside the realm of Bolshevism. A conservative Anglican today is one who believes in the Deity of Christ. Such an Anglican would generally have been a liberal Anglican a century ago. The fact that something is conservative relative to something else, doesn’t make it conservative in relation to the Tradition of the Church.
Father Whiteford, it’s not question-begging to suggest that Cyprian’s text has been tampered with, but simple induction. Is it likely that third century Cyprian happened to have a text of the Comma identical to its medieval form and fourth/fifth century Augustine, mere miles from Carthage, didn’t? What would be the likelihood that various altered forms of this comma appear starting with a heretic’s treatise two centuries after Cyprian would then develop through texts and centuries to eventually match the Cyprianic text? Or did an unscrupulous medieval scribe simply insert it in various of Cyprian’s works because he knew it and it supported Cyprian’s arguments? Why would it not have been used in the Christological and Pnematological controversies if it had existed? I daresay that we will not find in any Eastern work the phrasing “Father, Word, and Holy Spirit”! If it is truly of Priscillianist origin, then this is some kind of slogan from a gnostic-dualistic heresy, and should be excised from every Bible.
I know of Dean Burgon’s various works. I know he has quite a following, but harking back to an earlier stage of textual criticism is mere obscurantism. If one is to confront a textual matter, the current tools, texts and methods must be used, and current information on critical editions of the works of the Fathers and on the various textual traditions are paramount to understand the issues. Burgon is completely out of date in that respect, so he is useless. His argumentation may be interesting, but things have developed too much since his time for him to be of primary value.
Father, I think it’s clear we agree at least in finding one another’s approach to the OSB misguided! Orthodox Christians are now buying the OSB not just as a Bible, but as a Bible that has an Old Testaement claimed to be a translation of the Septuagint. They’re quite excited about that. Were it true, we could all rejoice! But instead, it is clear we’ve been lied to. It is not fully a Septuagint by any means, and it is entirely unhelpful to gloss over this. If someone asks me (and they have, by the way) for a good English translation of the Septuagint, I am of course going to recommend the NETS (as indeed I have), even with its problems in not being designed for devotional reading, but academic study. When Peter Papoutsis’ translation is done, I’ll get a copy of his, and will very likely recommend that. When someday, Fr Cleenewerck’s is done, I’ll get a copy of that and likely recommend it, too. I know, from what I know of those gentlemen, that both of those translations are actual translations of the Septuagint and will be much better than the OSB, but they’re unfortunately not complete yet. The OSB would require so much of an overhaul that I doubt Nelson would even consider it. It would require a new project, new editing, new contributions. A second edition would have to be an entirely different book for it to begin to be acceptably categorized as a translation of the Septuagint. (I leave completely to the side the issue of the jejune annotations!) I am distressed that people are digging into the OT (or rather the “St Athanasius Academy Septuagint”) of the OSB as though it were an accurate reflection of the Church’s text, when it’s most patently not. How do you think they are going to react when confronted with the real thing? They’re going to be confused is what! And so how helpful in the end is this OSB hybrid that leads to the confusion of the faithful? So then, knowing how people are, because they’re already used to the OSB, they’ll likely stick with the OSB hybrid pseudo-translation rather than reading and loving a proper English translation of the Church’s actual text which differs from what they know as “our Bible based on the Septuagint.” That’s scandalous! For that reason alone, the NETS is more useful as it will be very much closer (and you will find great use of it as a reference, to be sure!) to what the faithful will eventually be reading and loving as a proper, well-translated English Septuagint. It would be better for them (and for all of us!) not to have such a steep learning curve, but that’s all water under the bridge now, thanks to the OSB. Now is the time for damage control.
I’m sorry that we don’t see eye to eye on this issue. I think once you have both of the versions in your own hands, your stance may change, though. I am not easily distressed, but this OSB situation bothers me, obviously. It’s God’s Word at issue here, after all. Proper care should’ve been taken to represent it better, without recourse to shortcuts, which is seemingly what has led to this mess. It could’ve been better, and should’ve been better.
I’m not sure that I understand the proposed definition of “conservative” or “liberal”. Kevin suggests that this is simply common terminology (the way other people use the term) — which is a very clever answer, but also hints that the way people use the term is consistent (which is not at all clear). Moreover, it suggests the term is meaningless without common usage, which means that we have no way to judge whether a particular new translation (“translation X”) is liberal or conservative until a popular consensus has formed about it — which begs the question of how the popular consensus forms. For example, can we generally say (to deliberately misinterpret Kevin’s words) that translations made from the Vulgate are more conservative than translations made from the Greek (or Hebrew)?
Father Whiteford suggests that the identity of the people who made the translation determines whether a translation is liberal or conservative: “I dont consider the RSV a conservative translation by any stretch. It is certainly not as bad as many, but it was certainly done by scholars of a primarily liberal bent and by at least one non-Christian.” This answer is unsatisfying because it suggests that we cannot judge where a translation is based on the translation alone. In other words, if I present “translation X” with no information about the translators, Father Whiteford’s definition gives no guide for judging the “status” of the translation.
I suspect that behind both these definitions is a blurred combination of two separate notions: (a) whether a translation is traditional (that is, it agrees with traditional translations such as the KJV or D-R or other traditional translation); and (b) whether a translation agrees with a traditional devotional interpretation of Scripture (such as a Patristic interpretation.)
The latter notion (b) poses a real problem for Protestants who claim to adhere to a purely Biblically-based theology because by definition, such believers claim to read Scripture afresh and not necessarily adhere to any new interpretations.
Sorry, my last paragraph was mangled: I meant to say –
The latter notion (b) poses a real problem for Protestants who claim to adhere to a purely Biblically-based theology because by definition, such believers claim to read Scripture afresh and not necessarily adhere to any particular tradition-based interpretation.
Close, Iyov. My own perspective on what’s a “liberal” versus “conservative” translation is different from my clever answer (which I enjoyed!) that “people say” this kind of thing, but is more related, as you noted, to the streams of tradition within which the different translations appear, which are several. (I think of paraphrase/literal in those terms, not as liberal/conservative.) So, yes, for the Roman Catholic crowd, the Vulgate used to be the required text (and still is for the mass in Latin), which was translated into English in the Douai-Rheims (and some partial earlier translations; I’ve reworked the Douai-Rheims NT Introduction and OT Introduction to be more readable, which describes some of that). In the wake of Vatican II, the Latin Vulgate was no longer required as the basis for translation, and there we have the New American Bible (which is required to be used in English services), and the New Jerusalem Bible, both in the Catholic tradition, but very different from anything before. I think that’s why they were labeled by people more comfortable with the older translations “liberal,” just because they didn’t hold to the older tradition. “Innovation” is, after all, in some quarters quite a dirty word.
And generally, I think English-speaking people would agree that something closer to the King James Version is somehow more traditional and therefore more conservative, so influential was the KJV. We run into this even in my Greek Orthodox parish, where the English reader prefers more “traditional” translations, that is, ones closer to the KJV, followed by the Greek reader reading the ancient Greek, of course.
I really do think the King James Bible is the standard by which English translations are judged either “conservative” or “liberal.” That these two terms map to “traditional” and “innovating” is not too surprising that way. And that is a completely separate issue, though the terms are the same, for the groups using those descriptors to label their social perspectives. That is, an innovating/liberal translation doesn’t require an innovating/liberal reader, etc. As Fr Whiteford said above, there’s the issue of context, too. One man’s conservative translation (the RSV) is another man’s liberal one!
Note that a translation such as the “Living Bible” or even the NIV, which vary substantially from the KJV, are “innovating” but still “conservative” by most accounts.
Similarly, the D-R enjoys a status not enjoyed by Knox’s translation of the Vulgate. I note that Knox was severely criticized by his contemporaries for liberalism. Nonetheless, Knox clearly follows the traditional Latin more closely than the various Challoner revisions of the D-R (which, as many critics point out, are closer to the KJV than the Latin). So arguably, the Challoner D-R is more “innovating” and yet more “conservative.”
[Note: And to add to the ironies, the most widely read Vulgate today, the Nova Vulgata, is as much a product of "liberal scholarship" as the RSV.]
As for the text of St. Cyprian’s treatise. There is also a theory that the Johannine Comma gained what popularity that it had based on the influence of his citation. In any case, it is speculation to argue that this citation was a later gloss, without any manuscript evidence to base such an argument upon. The fact is, in the text we have, he does cite it. To assert then, as Metzger does, that St. Cyprian was unaware of it, without so much as noting that this text does cite it, is sloppy scholarship at best.
I would recommend you read Burgon before you make the determination that his writings are useless. I would also suggest you read Thomas Oden’s stuff… particularly, After Modernity… What?, or if you can get your hands on the original version of that boook “Agenda for Theology” read that. The assumption that that which is new is better is one you should question. Yes, textual criticism has developed since Burgon… but I would argue it has developed mostly in the wrong direction. Burgon’s assumptions were generally more consistent with those of the Orthodox approach to tradition. The Wescott-Hort approach is essentially based on the assumption that the Holy Spirit has not preserved the text, that the Church has not preserved it either, and that one must reconstruct it based on a few early manuscripts that differ substantially from the text preserved in almost every other manuscript, translation, or patristic quote that we have.
I have very little faith in contemporary academia, particularly in the field of Biblical Studies.
There are contemporary scholars who have essentially argued in favor of Burgon’s approach, so one doesn’t have to depend on his work alone, but unlike most textual critics, he was also a Patristic scholar, and so when he talks about citations in the Fathers, he is not simply repeating someone else’s erroneous scholarship without checking it himself (like Metzger and most other contemporary scholars have done), but based his comments on his own readings of the fathers.
Fr Whiteford, now that’s certainly begging the question. The manuscript evidence for 1 John is conclusive. There is no evidence of a biblical text of Cyprian’s time that would have included the comma, not in any language. That”s just a fact. And it would require, according to his usage of it as explicitly stated to be Scripture, that they would be in there. The rank impossibility of that leads to the conclusion that his text has been tampered with. A late manuscript of Cyprian tied with an identical late text of the comma is conclusive proof that the comma in this case is intrusive. You can’t seriously argue in the face of all the versional evidence, East and West, that the comma is authentic, Burgon or no Burgon!
I realize that you have little faith in contemporary academia, particularly in the field of Biblical Studies, but you misunderstand me. I have my own issues with many of the conclusions presented as fact within this field. That doesn’t mean that sloppy scholarship may be excused simply when it counters them. It means that more rigorous work needs to be done in order to obtain better answers. And that work must utilize the methods and tools developed over the course of the last century, like the Robinson-Pierpont edition of the Byzantine Text of the New Testament, which is available both in print and free online. It is a product of modern textual criticism, and nothing to be sneezed at. Many of the tools and certainly the methods themselves are objectively effective, though many of the conclusions reached in using them may be wrong.
Your impression of Metzger is wrong. He was certainly familiar with the Fathers, and read and worked with them in a variety of languages which is rarely paralleled. There may be points on issues of text that you disagree with, and that’s fine. But he was a much better scholar than Burgon was, and than either of us. I would recommend to you particularly Metzger’s Text of the New Testament (the older edition is preferable to the one with Bart Ehrman) and particularly his Early Versions of the New Testament. In addition, Kurt and Barbara Aland’s Text of the New Testament: an Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism. Now you may disagree with their findings, but the methods are available to everyone, and you may counter them as you will. You must, however, know them to do so.
Iyov, I think that’s only secondarily the case. I remember when the NIV was new back in 1984 it was chided for being too “liberal” in the sense of paraphrastic, and not appropriately “conservative” in literal translation like the KJV. The NASB had a much better reception that way, right around the same time. But it’s definitely the case that the NIV is now perceived as conservative due to its use by social conservatives, but this is a secondary issue to the text itself.
Even within the NIV, within the constraints of its paraphrase, they clearly follow along the KJV traditional lines in punctuation, which makes for striking differences in, say, John 1 between the NIV and NRSV. The former is more recognizably related to the KJV than the latter, even right at verses three and four. The same kind of non-traditional punctuation comes into play in some of Paul’s letters (I can’t recall exact examples) which make some of the text in the NRSV only vaguely familiar, while in the NIV, even with its more paraphrastic text, the passages are recognizable. So, it’s a bit more complex than even just the literal/paraphrastic spectrum of the language, but I suppose the wider traditional input of a variety of approaches to the text, including the text itself, punctuation, and then translational style itself.
I’m sure Metzger is sorely missed by many, and his absence will perhaps be most greatly felt at the Evangelical Theological Society conference in Providence, Rhode Island, November 19-21, where the theme will be “Text and Canon”:
http://www.etsjets.org/?q=annual_conference_registration
It’s open to non-members, for a low registration fee, and as in the past, I expect all the sessions will be taped and available on MP3 CDs for those who want to hear all the discussions. (The pre-order price – pd. when mailing in your registration – is usually at a great discount from the price for the CDs at the conference.)
Everyone, the anonymous monastic father Felix Culpa has posted another installment of his review of the OSB: Orthodox Study Bible, My Turn: II.
He has found some further failings of the volume.
You wrote: “Fr Whiteford, now that’s certainly begging the question. The manuscript evidence for 1 John is conclusive. There is no evidence of a biblical text of Cyprian’s time that would have included the comma, not in any language.”
Me: Yes there is… St. Cyrpian quotes from it in all the manuscripts of his treatise on the unity of the Church which we have. That is evidence that it existed during his time. If you had some version of St. Cyprians treatise that did not quote from it, then you would have evidence to support your assertion that this was a gloss. As it is, you have you only speculation, based on the circular assumption that it must be a gloss because it could not have been in a text in the 3rd century. But if it certainly was in a text in the 4th century, and it is quoted in all the available texts of a 3rd century writer, there is no reason at all to assume that there could not have been such a text in the 3rd century.
KE: “You can’t seriously argue in the face of all the versional evidence, East and West, that the comma is authentic, Burgon or no Burgon!”
Me: I have repeatedly stated that I was not making any such argument. Only that the reading is older and has more support than you are admitting to. I would not object to any text that omitted these reading (though it’s historical importance probably at least warrants a margin note), but I would also not get too worked up about any text that included it. The St. Tikhon Apostol includes, for example.
KE: “And that work must utilize the methods and tools developed over the course of the last century, like the Robinson-Pierpont edition of the Byzantine Text of the New Testament, which is available both in print and free online. It is a product of modern textual criticism, and nothing to be sneezed at. Many of the tools and certainly the methods themselves are objectively effective, though many of the conclusions reached in using them may be wrong.”
Me: The methods and “tools” of textual criticism are all based on assumptions that are not provable in any “scientific” way, and those assumptions are either good or bad… consistent with an Orthodox view of Scripture and Tradition or not. I would argue that much of what is passed off as objective scientific methodology here is anything but that, and rooted in rationalistic and anti-traditional assumptions. Burgon, while still a Protestant, and thus not completely in line with our way of approaching the text, is far closer than most of the alternatives. I would encourage you to read his essay on the ending of St. Mark’s Gospel, for starters. The Johannine Comma is the weakest textual issue for the Textus Receptus, but in my opinion, the ending of Mark is the weakest link in the Wescott-Hort, UBS, Nestle-Aland position.
KE: “Your impression of Metzger is wrong. He was certainly familiar with the Fathers, and read and worked with them in a variety of languages which is rarely paralleled. There may be points on issues of text that you disagree with, and that?s fine. But he was a much better scholar than Burgon was, and than either of us. I would recommend to you particularly Metzger’s Text of the New Testament (the older edition is preferable to the one with Bart Ehrman) and particularly his Early Versions of the New Testament.”
Me: You can make that assertion all you want, but I only know that I have caught Metzger repeating demonstrably false information regarding the ending of St. Mark’s Gospel — and the facts were out there and available, had he been inclined to acquaint himself with them. I have not found Burgon to have repeated demonstrably false information that he should have known better of. Also, if you haven’t read Burgon, on what basis do you reach this conclusion?
KE: “In addition, Kurt and Barbara Aland’s Text of the New Testament: an Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism. Now you may disagree with their findings, but the methods are available to everyone, and you may counter them as you will. You must, however, know them to do so.”
Me: I am familiar with those methods. It has been about 20 years since I made an extensive study of the issue, but I read scholars on all sides, and even debates between opposing scholars on the issue. I began the study with no opinion one way or the other (before hand I used translations based on the UBS/ Nestle-Aland, not knowing the issues behind those editions), and became convinced that the Majority Text approach was the one that made the most sense… and after I became Orthodox, the idea that the text which has been preserved throughout the Church is the most reliable text made even more sense.
Father Whiteford, you’re misunderstanding me. The methods of textual criticism and its tools (which are critical texts of patristic writers, in particular) are objective. It’s the way that they’re wielded which can lead to errors. The data given by Metzger above is objective. Your conclusions may vary, but the data itself is unquestionable. Metzger and the others use the objective data in regards to various other points too, like the ending of Mark, yet their conclusions can be just as wrong as anyone else’s. The data is not the issue, but the interpretation of it. The methods and the tools stand to one side to be used by anyone. And if you know them very well, then you can use them, too.
There are no third century texts of Cyprian, so we most certainly cannot say that the actual text of Cyprian is exactly as he left it and that he included the comma or something like it in his original. In fact, we know that his text is not as he left it, and that it has been worked over in several different directions, leading to divergent texts. We learn all that from the people that have done the work to compile those texts and examine their differences. It does no one any good to ignore that work or demean it. The Johannine Comma appears in the late fourth century among the Priscillianists. Is that not early enough for you?
For me, it matters not too much what the precise original of the text was, as the Byzantine/Majority Text of the New Testament is the sacred text of the Church, whatever its age, just as the complicated families of texts called the Septuagint is our Old Testament. Our printed texts should reflect that tradition, and certainly not the later pseudo-critical Textus Receptus, which is too contaminated precisely by Latin readings. Certainly the modern UBS critical edition makes a hash of things, as it is guided by some questionable assumptions, so different conclusions are reached. The same methods, however, may be used to good effect, as in the Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine Majority Text edition that I linked to in an earlier comment.
You wrote: “Father Whiteford, you’re misunderstanding me. The methods of textual criticism and its tools (which are critical texts of patristic writers, in particular) are objective.”
Me: On what basis do you assert that the methods of textual criticism are objective? Says who? By what standard? Which set of methods? These methods are based on particular cultural, theology, and philosophical assumptions, and those assumptions are not objective undeniable truths.
KE: “It’s the way that they’re wielded which can lead to errors. The data given by Metzger above is objective. Your conclusions may vary, but the data itself is unquestionable. Metzger and the others use the objective data in regards to various other points too, like the ending of Mark, yet their conclusions can be just as wrong as anyone else’s.”
Me: When they list fathers as supporting the omission of the ending of Mark, simply on the basis that they do not quote from Mark’s ending… when in some cases they never quoted from the Gospel of Mark at all in the writings we have from them, that is not objective data… that is a dishonest twist on the data which completely misrepresents the actual facts, and this sort of nonsense is repeated without most folks checking out the actual data (what the texts actually say or do not say).
Yes, Father, those are misuses of the methods. The methods utilized in textual criticism are themselves very general principles that are based upon observation of scribal practice based in actual, real, manuscripts, observable by anyone. This is called lower criticism, and it is objective. You’re objecting to higher criticism, which is the subjective theorizing done to explain why a particular text is as it is. Higher criticism is well-known for overreaching itself. Lower criticism is, however, the foundation for all of the rest and is objective, because it would actually present the text, say very specific, limited, objective things about it, and then leave it at that. Higher criticism is the one that goes crazy with it, that has essentially no controls, but that dead Germans thought was more impressive so they gave it the “higher” name, and the good, objective work the “lower” name. It’s really a case of “the first shall be last,” etc.
Pingback: BIBBIABLOG » Temi biblici nei blog del mese di marzo
I don’t know if anyone else has commented on this; if so I haven’t seen it.
The notes in Genesis, at the Hospitality of Abraham, specifically state that the three men are the Lord and two angels. From what I understand, the idea that that was a manifestation of the Trinity is not dogmatized or anything, but surely that belief is important enough to be mentioned, especially considering the famous Icon (which is reproduced in the OSB, and labeled as being the Holy Trinity or the Hospitality of Abraham.)
Thanks for mentioning that, Peter. That’s a perfect example of another missed opportunity. It really should have been explained in detail since the icon is actually included in the volume.
And about that icon: why not use an image of the Rublev Hospitality of Abraham instead of one of the modern knock-offs of it? To say nothing of its spiritual value, the Rublev original is a universally recognized artistic masterpiece, so beautiful that even the atheist Bolsheviks didn’t destroy it. The one in the OSB? Not so much.
Kevin,
Since you seem to know some of the people (or know of them) who are working on new Orthodox translations of the LXX and the NT, would you care to put in a plug for all of us regarding the quality of binding and paper and type face??? :-) How nice it would be to have a Bible that reflects the full beauty of Orthodoxy. I know it would be expensive, and perhaps require two volumes, but I suspect it would be a hit. I would buy my share!
Kevin B.
I’ll certainly do so, Kevin! I think the example of the OSB is pretty good incentive to go for a step up, unfortunately….
Oh, give me a break…do you really think the OSB was done for academic eggheads like you!? It is very readable and the notes are useful and if Orthodoxy is about ‘who is a heretic and who isn’t’ then I fear for our future ! I am sure the OSB version ISN’T perfect…but it is a wonderful translation that will bring many to the faith and nourish many of us who are. For the rest of you, all I can say is “complain, complain, complain!”
Well, Kevin, that the OSB OT is not by any stretch of any standard “a wonderful translation” is an issue. That it claims to be a full translation of the Septuagint, and is not, is likewise an issue, as this is misleading at best and false advertising at worst. How is it acceptable to slap the label “Orthodox” on it and expect it to receive a pass by that? There are quite a number of people, “academic eggheads” or not, Orthodox or not, who take issue with the OSB, whether on the issue of the translation itself (which is the first issue I have brought up), the physical quality of the volume itself (which is low), or the notes and articles, claimed to be full of Patristic wisdom when they are not — more false advertising. The whole thing, for the length of time of its preparation (roughly fifteen years, all told), is a serious disappointment.
When you can come up with serious Orthodox reasons for why this is acceptable, you’ll find an audience. However, when you use such language as you did in your comment, before my editing it, you show that you have a way to go before you’ll have one.
My apologies for the offensive language! You are correct to rebuke me for that!
But if you want something worthy of all the blog space, rather than criticising a translation that will bring many to the Holy Orthodox Church and nourish many more (including this reader – a philosophy major with an English minor, and a journalist – here’s one: why do we continue to have 11 non-canonical Orthodox “jurisdictions” in the U.S., which presents a contradiction to our culture between the “unity” of the faith and Church which we proclaim and the ecclesiastical reality? Why are you and your bloggers obsessing about a positive contribution to Orthodox evangelism in the U.S. (the OSB) and failing to rail about that which is perhaps the greatest obstacle to the growth of Orthodoxy in America??
Thank you for the apology, Kevin.
I’ll say this: you need to broaden your scope. The Orthodox Study Bible is not just an American phenomenon, but an issue of the Orthodox Church, which is most certainly not solely an American phenomenon. My concern is with the accurate presentation of the faith of the Church, and not problems that exist solely in one geographical territory, particularly a problem with a very specific cause related to the nature of that territory as a nation of immigrants. That problem is very well-known, and will be addressed in time by the hierarchs responsible for its solution. Harping on the issue will help precisely this much: not at all.
The OSB, on the other hand, seems to many not to be a problem at all, and that certainly needs to be addressed. Is it a “positive contribution” that the notes and articles of the OSB are not only misconstruable but in part heretical? Is its lack of quality a “positive contribution”? A bookbinding nun I know is shocked that the “leather” edition has a glued binding — that’s simply not done. Is its misrepresentation of its Old Testament as a translation of the Septuagint a “positive contribution”?
Lastly, the others blogging with issues about the OSB are not “my” bloggers, but different people who, like me, have been greatly disappointed by this OSB, and so have been describing why this book is unworthy of the “Orthodox” in its title. None of the points I raised in the post above are fabrications, incorrect, or even equivocal. Something very bad has happened here with the OSB and that needs to be aired.
You responded [of the jurisdictional mess in the U.S.]:
“That problem is very well-known, and will be addressed in time by the hierarchs responsible for its solution.”
I appreciate your faith in our hierarchs! (By the way it is not only the responsibility of the hierarchs to solve this problem -the laity has an important role too !)
But after having expressed such faith in our hierarchs over one significant matter [unresolved for many years], I find it interesting that you are so critical of the Orthodox Study Bible, which the hierarchs in America (and some abroad) have given their imprimatur to and for which many of them served as the edition’s “Overview Committee”?
Maybe you should send a letter of protest to the book’s “Overview Committee”, including its twelve (12) hierarchs, and then do as you suggested on the other matter– let those with responsibility address its solution!
Kevin, you perhaps need a little more of the “behind the scenes” information. The fact of the matter is that not all those hierarchs saw the OSB prior to its publication (indeed and probably still have not!) nor did they know that they were part of such an “Overview Committee.” They certainly do not give an imprimatur to it by their names having been included while they have had nothing to do with it.
What is this “the laity has an important role too”? Would you turn Orthodoxy into some kind of congregationalist claptrap? The role of the laity is prayer and obedience. And you too should have faith in your hierarchs. They are graced by God with charisms for their duties, which the laity is not.
“Would you turn Orthodoxy into some kind of congregationalist claptrap? The role of the laity is prayer and obedience.”
With respect, you are dead wrong on this point. Laity’s role goes far beyond just prayer and obedience in ecclesiastical life. Your defintion (prayer and obedience) is the exclusive purview of the monastic community, NOT the faithful laity (whose role is NOT and has never been passivity).
Many times throughout Orthodox Christian history hierarchical decisions – including ‘reunification’ with Rome! – were rejected by the Orthodox faithful. This is nothing new and most certainly not “congregationalism”. I am sure you are very aware of this fact.
Laity are and have been directly involved in the election of hiererchas. These include:
* The election (prior to 1923) of the Ecumenical Patriarch (inc. laity)
* The election of Patriarch Alexius II of Moscow (in.c laity)
*The elections of Archbishoip Chrysostom of Cyprus and Patriarch Peter VII of Alexandria (inc. laity)
The Apostolic Constitution states:
“Let the Bishop be ordained after he has been chosen by the people…”
You write: “They are graced by God with charisms for their duties, which the laity is not.”
Paul Evdokimov writes: “every baptized person is sealed with the gifts, anointed with the Holy Spirit in his very essence. Every lay person is the priest of his or her existence, offering (to God) his entire life and existence.” He goes on to call the Sacrament of Chrismation “the sacrament of universal priesthood…” To say that the position of lay people in the Holy Church is passive, Evdokimov states is “a flagrant conbtradiction of what the Church Fathers teach.”
Fr. Dimitrios Constantelos writes: “It was neither the apostles (the bishops) nor the presbyters (priests) by themselves, but the whole church that determined the council’s actions and deliberations. It was nearly two centuries later, when, for several reasons, the Episcopal office emerged as the leading office, that bishops became either the only or the dominant participants in a council. The earliest church councils, in which the clergy and the laity both participated in imitation of the apostolic church, were held during the second half of the second century in Asia Minor to refute the misleading teachings of the Montanists.”
My main point, though, is that on the one hand you tell me to “let the hierarchs address…”, that the role of the laity is “prayer and obedsiance”, etc. and then you spend all this blog time criticizing the OSB, which — unless the Editors have published the names of our hierachs falsely in bad faith — indicates 12 of them by individual name as the “Overview Committee”! Did the Editors lie?
By the way, have any of these hierarchs – whom you claim did not see the book before its publication, or even know they were on the “Overview Committee” – made critical public comments about the validity of the edition since its publication, or protest their names being published in the front of the edition?
I will be most happy to check with Fr. Peter Gillquist (and get back to you) on whether most of the hierachs listed in the publication did not know [as you state] that they were part of the Overview Committee. Have you asked him?
You and your blogger readers are perfectly within your right to spend all this time nit-picking the OSB apart and opining on all the reasons why converts and all the rest are watering down the faith and so on. But the fact is this: without the move of God in bringing ex-Protestants into the faith; without the move of God in continuing in some jurisdictions to bring in new faithful; the entire Orthodox Church in America would be in decline, not just the majority of it.
Elitism and academic egg-headedness (along with phyletism) are reasons why we only have 1.8 million Orthodox faithful in this country (2008 Pew survey on US Religious Affiliation)! For heaven’s sake illiterate men and women have been among our greatest saints for 2,000 years. We can probably survive the publications of the OSB and a few of its imperfections!
You have much to learn, Kevin, about Orthodoxy.
You quote the Apostolic Constitutions, a work with which I’m very familiar. It’s wrong to do so, because it is an Arian work, rejected explicitly by the Church.
You do not understand that different charisms are given to the laity and the hierarchy. That’s surprising. Ask a bishop about it sometime. Ask a bishop about the role of the laity in his selection and ordination, for instance, or the role of the laity in an Ecumenical Council for that matter. Be prepared to be disappointed.
My sources are not mistaken. You may not like the implications, but it’s reality. Note that I did not say “most” but “some.” It is perhaps the case that most of them did not see it and didn’t know they were on this “committee.” Some of them did not. Draw your own conclusions regarding the impropriety of such matters.
What nit-picking is going on here? Nothing of what I’ve brought up are inconsequential matters of opinion, but serious concerns regarding integrity and a proper presentation of Orthodoxy, whether for internal Orthodox consumption or as a presentation of Orthodoxy to the English-speaking world.
Do you suggest some large number of members are better than preserving Orthodoxy?! You want more people in the Church, but educated wrongly on Her doctrines? What happens when they’re confronted with the real thing? When will these members finally be considered worthy to be treated as adults and to be taught the True Faith?
Nowhere do I object to the influx of Protestant converts, and I never would. I do, however, strenuously object to this glib, superficial, uninformed, dishonest and unOrthodox approach to the Faith that is being presented as Orthodox.
The OSB neglects proper Orthodox theology and the precision of its formulation and expression for what? Watered down pap, Orthodoxy Lite. Actual heresy appears in those OSB notes in places. That is completely unacceptable.
If you were upset with what I’ve written to this point, be prepared for more. After having looked at some of the notes in depth, it’s time. The gloves come off now….
I will leave it at this and let you and your blog buddies continue to obsess over the OSB and its imperfections. But I will say: elitism and fundamentalism are a real problems in the Orthodox Church in the U.S. and frankly these pheneomena are directly tied to spiritual pride. Lord Have Mercy.
You are calling “elitism and fundamentalism” what many others call “concern for properly expressed Orthodox theology.” That’s not our problem, but yours, Kevin. It is certainly some kind of obsessive pride that continually excuses error and defends a substandard product that will lead unwary Orthodox and others astray, possibly even into heresy, through poor phraseology and accustoming people to “theology lite.” There’s absolutely no excuse for that.
Lord have mercy!
…yes, well I am sure you have been appointed the job of determining – for the Orthodox Church – what is properly expressed Orthodox theology” and what is and isn’t “theology lite”!
Nice, Kevin. Are you aware that there are a number of hierarchs (whose job that actually is, by the way) who are not happy with the OSB? Are you aware that there is a growing number of people (as soon as they receive copies, it seems, the howls begin!) trained in Orthodox theology that are likewise not happy with it? Are you aware that iconographers and even bookbinders find it substandard?
Let’s take a look at some theology lite OSB style, shall we? Shall we take a page from the OSB and start referring to God as “They”? Hmm? Oh, yeah, that’s soundly Orthodox, all right! Ever heard of tritheism? It’s a heresy. And this loose language is precisely pointing toward it, the thought of three Gods. That’s dangerous and entirely unacceptable for a so-called Orthodox Bible that supposedly accurately reflects Orthodox theology. Precision and accuracy of theological language is paramount to Orthodox theology!
No one, least of all me, is saying that Orthodox theology can only be expressed in long-winded esoteric tracts in theological journals with a readership of precisely five seminarians. What I and others are saying is that even the simpler expressions of Orthodox theology, whether outward-facing works designed for evangelisation or inward-facing works for the spiritual nourishment of Orthodox laity, need to be entirely and absolutely CORRECT theologically. This is not the case with the Orthodox Study Bible, which is scandalous.
Another thing. The next time you go trolling around various people’s blogs leaving comments on your objections to their critiques, try to be a bit less petulant. Such a practice may actually make your comments seem to have some substance to them.
Hm… Kevin, I wish to believe that your intentions are good here, but I think (and forgive me if I wrong you) that your manner is rather unbecoming. It seems to me that it would be valuable (no matter how thoroughly you dislike the OSB) to maintain a little more humility about your conclusions and suspicions, and a little more respect for those that do, in fact, approve of the OSB (especially those in authority in the Church – “protestant converts” or not). Charity seems always to be called for… sarcasm and cynicism – honestly I have to doubt their usefulness in any situation.
Mikey, there’s no sarcasm or cynicism involved. The problems with the OSB are real. I understand the appeal to charity, but in the face of wrongly and dangerously, sometimes even heretically phrased theology, such is not an issue. These are not simply my conclusions, but those of quite a number of people, both willing to speak on the matter and not, including even Orthodox hierarchs and monastics. I know that I’m in very good company indeed. The OSB is a mess, and the reaction is not a personal one, but one that is common to those of us Orthodox who care about Theology, which is our proper speech about God, first and foremost. There can be no compromise there, and incorrect presentation of Orthodox theology in an ostensibly Orthodox Study Bible under preparation for more than a decade is inexcusable.
Very interesting discussion. I found the “slop” error the other day, so I decided to search on it and found this blog. I very much appreciate the time and energy that has been put in here by all parties. Kevin E. thank you for being so bold to offer criticism. I think that we can all agree that there is no perfect Bible, but I will definitely look into the NETS text.
I’m glad that we don’t subscribe to ‘sola scriptura’ and can resort to Orthodox praxis and prayer!
You’re very welcome! Make sure to look through the posts on the matter at Felix Culpa’s site, Ora et Labora. While his health permitted, he kept up the critique as well and posted links to others. And please try to remember him in your prayers!
Pingback: Yet More Comments on the Complete OSB « The Voice of Stefan