What is the Orthodox view on reading a 'different' Bible?

SeraphimSarov said:

I completely forgot to post this. This is the NT only, but it is quite good, and free to download. It's also available for purchase if you want an actual paper copy.

http://www.orthodox-church.info/eob/download/eobntpublic.pdf

Click to expand...

Thank you so very much.

I downloaded it and started to read the introduction. Great read.

Interesting that you mention the Apocrypha, I should have in my previous post. The Orthodox Study Bible containing both testaments contains the Apocrypha. I just checked my copy and it uses the St Athanasius Academy Septuagint for the Old Testament and the New King James Version for the New Testament.

The 1611 version of the King James bible contained the Septuagint also. The Septuagint was removed during the times of Puritan control in England and was handed on down to the Protestants in that revised form worldwide. What a shame.

gzt said:

I like the RSV Catholic Edition put out by Oxford, which has most of our "Apocrypha" and the officially preferred Catholic MS variants, which mostly agree with ours.

Click to expand...

I went "old school"once & bought a Douay Rheims

RobNJ said:

I went "old school"once & bought a Douay Rheims

Click to expand...

So did I.

Theodore Adriaticus:

Just a side note: All of the adivse here is great (in my opinion) but I think one thing should be clear that may help quell any scruples you may be struggling with regarding the issue of which Bible to use.

Fortunately (for so many reason) we are NOT Sola Scriptura. Now, that doesn't mean that the Scriptures don't matter. They matter a great deal, of course (otherwise you wouldn't be asking your question!). However, becuase we are not Sola Scriptura, we don't have to lose sleep over which translation is most faithful to the original or have our own PhDs in archeology and Biblical Greek to rightly understand the Scriptures. Many protestants are indeed trapped into the academic box where they each have to perform their personal ecumenical council because they can put their faith in nothing except how their OWN mind interprets the Scripture and this is all based on the education (or lack thereof) they have received regarding all things historical (which is why there are so many denominations to date... each man is his own Pope as Luther predicted). (Sidenote: there are certainly many protestants who are not so Sola Scriptura as to find themselves in this perilous situation, but they are the exception). We have the consensus of the Church regarding how Scripture and the faith in general is understood. We understand the Scriptures in light of the wisdom of the Church. So, if we read the Masoretic texts, for the average Orthodox, that really shouldn't matter unless we are 1) trying to defend certain points of our faith to Protestants (which CAN be a noble pursuit) or 2) are just plain interested in this kind of stuff as an academic exercise (which is fine and good as long as it doesn't spawn pride in us.. but that goes for anything), 3) are not Orthodox and looking to understand the Scriptures as the ECFs did (not a complete part of the Scriptures, but has lead many to the True Church) or 4) are approaching the Scriptures as many of the later Reformers did, in an effort to re-create the perfect Church (not good).

Anyway, your pursuit is great, but I just want to shed light on perhaps why the Orthodox Church in the English Speaking world is not too stressed out at having an official translation: Regardless of what version we read, we follow the Church's understanding of the Scriptures and in that way we can never go wrong.

Hope that made some sense lol,

Josh

Fortunately (for so many reason) we are Sola Scriptura.

Click to expand...

Hope that made some sense lol,

Josh

Click to expand...

It would make more sense if you hadn't left out the "not" in the first quote.

Mary

MaryofBethany said:

It would make more sense if you hadn't left out the "not" in the first quote.

Mary

Click to expand...

fixed... thank you very much Mary!

Joshua G. said:

fixed... thank you very much Mary!

Click to expand...

Glad that you fixed the typo. I was going to post something about it, but checked and found that Mary mentioned the problem.

Regarding the Septuagint being lacking in modern translations with the one exception that I mentioned: true, but I remember, as a Protestant, being confused when I looked up OT references as quoted by the Gospel writers, they did not line up. If fact, for some of the King James text, I prefer it over the Septuagint, but have to recognize that the Septuagint is probable closer to what I should be reading when there is a discrepancy. Besides, in my high state of ignorance, who am I to pick and choose?

I guess that I am still trying to be my own Pope. Luther made his comment, true, but he, Calvin and Swingli all became Popes in their own right. One of the main reasons that I started a move towards the Orthodox Church, without realizing what I was doing, was because of a class I took at Bible college, 'The History of Christianity' taught be a Mennonite Brethren professor. He told us the tale of the Anabaptist's and their treatment by John Calvin and the Swiss Reformed Church, the murders, burnings, drownings in Swiss rivers, etc. and I decided that the 'big man' (I was in a Baptist fellowship at that time) didn't sound like a Christian to me. Later I came to understand that the 'great' Martin Luther had condemned about 300,000 German peasants to their deaths at the hands of the German nobility because they dare to revolt against their 'lawful rulers'. And, Swingli died in battle swinging a sword, so much for my Protestant heroes. I suppose that we all have the potentiality of becoming Popes in our own right if we are placed in such a position of power.

jacksson said:

Glad that you fixed the typo. I was going to post something about it, but checked and found that Mary mentioned the problem.

Regarding the Septuagint being lacking in modern translations with the one exception that I mentioned: true, but I remember, as a Protestant, being confused when I looked up OT references as quoted by the Gospel writers, they did not line up. If fact, for some of the King James text, I prefer it over the Septuagint, but have to recognize that the Septuagint is probable closer to what I should be reading when there is a discrepancy. Besides, in my high state of ignorance, who am I to pick and choose?

I guess that I am still trying to be my own Pope. Luther made his comment, true, but he, Calvin and Swingli all became Popes in their own right. One of the main reasons that I started a move towards the Orthodox Church, without realizing what I was doing, was because of a class I took at Bible college, 'The History of Christianity' taught be a Mennonite Brethren professor. He told us the tale of the Anabaptist's and their treatment by John Calvin and the Swiss Reformed Church, the murders, burnings, drownings in Swiss rivers, etc. and I decided that the 'big man' (I was in a Baptist fellowship at that time) didn't sound like a Christian to me. Later I came to understand that the 'great' Martin Luther had condemned about 300,000 German peasants to their deaths at the hands of the German nobility because they dare to revolt against their 'lawful rulers'. And, Swingli died in battle swinging a sword, so much for my Protestant heroes. I suppose that we all have the potentiality of becoming Popes in our own right if we are placed in such a position of power.

Click to expand...

So that's why we have the Church to guide us. We don't need to be our pope or "figure it out" on our own (not that it is bad or unimportant to want to understand the finer details of biblical scholarship).

Josh

Theodor Adriaticus said:

SeraphimSarov thanks a lot for the link I appreciate it.

Joshua, I found some older topics concerning issues of scripture wherein someone mentioned more or less the same thing as you did: one should learn old Greek language if one wants to read the ancient texts. For now I'll stick to English and who knows what the future will bring me.

Click to expand...

Theodor, you don't need any 'ancient' texts re: scripture. The 'ancient' texts are read at every Divine Liturgy in churches where the Greek is used. The priests and deacons simply read the words of the 'ancient' texts with modern pronunciation. Many of them don't understand all that they are reading, but they do 'in general' get the pronunciation right.

After a while, as a somewhat long time convert, I asked the abbess here at the monastery if the clergy was reading the 'ancient' text in Koine. She replied, of course they are reading Koine. She is Greek and was a nun in Greece before she came here so I am not sure that she really understood what I was asking. Anyway, after a while I figured out that, yes, the clergy was reading the Koine text, but with a modern pronunciation. The priest, who is not Greek, stumbles over the Greek pronunciations in the less familiar parts and I have learned to follow along (a better term might be 'stumble' also, the big words still get me) with my 1 1/2 years of bible college Koine Greek. The Greek is needed, at least at the monasteries (for now) and other languages are needed to get the most out of 'other language' texts, but it has to become English sooner or later to meet the needs of the people. Back in 1996 when I helped Metropolitan Jonah move from our Merced parish to his new location, St Eugene's Retreat at Point Reyes, his first liturgies contained quite a bit of Slavonic, but as the years progressed and at the new location in Manton, CA, there is no Slavonic that I can hear; I suspect that this will be the same with Greek. English has to be the primary language used for English-speaking people.

At the Greek parish in my town, Enlgish is mostly used. The priest speaks excelletn greek (he has a doctorate in linguistics form MIT... actually, hes one of the readers for the national Spelling Bee on TV every year!) but the only parts that are in Greek are SOME litanies which are repetitions of ones that have already been said before or will be said later in the DL. The Gospel is read in both languages too. But basically there is nothing that is not said in English and one point or another during the Liturgy. I think it is a perfect mix, actually.

I guess my real point is just to say that while Greek Churches probably are among the slowest to adapt, there are MANY Greek parishes (like this one) that have already fully adapted to their local population, which is a good thing.

Joshua G. said:

I guess my real point is just to say that while Greek Churches probably are among the slowest to adapt, there are MANY Greek parishes (like this one) that have already fully adapted to their local population, which is a good thing.

Click to expand...

You are very fortunate having the priest that you have who is very conversant in more than one language. Most of the GOA priests that I have been around are usually conversant to some degree in Greek and are wonderful priests. I would venture to guess that almost all of the GOA parishes in the United States are serving the Divine Liturgy exactly as you say yours is doing. The local churches here in Central California read the Epistle in English and Gospel readings in both Greek and English. They also usually do the Creed and the Lord's Prayer in both languages. At Orthros (Matins) though, the chanting is mostly in Greek.

He's not my priest, but you are right, we are fortunate to have him in in the area. He is extremely intelligent yet very personable with down-to-earth sermons. Ours is a Russian parish under Moscow, but it is 99.9% in English other than a few kyrie eleisons and... however you say it in Slovanic lol.