The Best Study Bibles on the Market Today

The Bible can be read from a tradition-neutral point of view, at least in theory, but even those who attempt to do so will often also read the text from a point of view internal to a specific Jewish or Christian tradition. Students who wish to understand the Bible from the point of view of a specific tradition are well-advised to consider purchasing one or more of the following study Bibles [but see Iyov's comment below; I thank Iyov, E-S., and Doug Chaplin [check out his relevant comments] for their input; the original post has now been revised for the better]:

(1) The Jewish Study Bible. Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler, editors. Michael Fishbane, consulting editor. Jewish Publication Society tanakh translation. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.

(2) The Orthodox Study Bible. New Testament and Psalms. Joseph Allen, Michel Najim, Jack Norman Sparks, and Theodore Stylianopoulos, editors. New King James Version. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1997. A complete Orthodox Study Bible is in preparation.

(3) The Catholic Study Bible. Second Edition. Donald Senior and John J. Collins, general editors. New American Bible translation. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006 [first edition: 1990, Donald Senior, general editor. Mary Ann Getty, Carroll Stuhlmueller, and John J. Collins, associate editors].

(4) The New Jerusalem Bible. Study Edition. Henry Wansbrough, editor. New York: Doubleday, 1985. Catholic. So far I know, later editions lack the extensive notes and introductions.

(5) Zondervan NIV Study Bible. Kenneth L. Barker, general editor. Donald W. Burdick, John H. Stek, Walter W. Wessel, Ronald F. Youngblood, associate editors. New International Version. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004 [first edition: 1985]. Evangelical. The 2002 / 2004 editions represent an improvement over earlier editions. The notes to this Study Bible are translation-neutral to a large extent, insofar as they also grace the pages of a NASB study Bible. For further details, go here. Many other evangelical study Bibles are available, of a more confessional or of a more devotional nature.

The following study Bibles, all excellent, are written from a tradition-neutral point of view. In reality, it is probably better to speak of a tradition of another kind, that of historical-critical scholarship, whose methods are utilized by a large number of scholars of various religious persuasions or none:

(6) The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha. Bruce M. Metzger and Roland E. Murphy, editors. Revised Standard Version. London: Oxford University Press, 1997 [first edition: 1962]. Ecumenical.

(7) The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha. Bruce M. Metzger and Roland E. Murphy, editors. New Revised Standard Version with the Apocryphal / Deuterocanonical Books.  New York: Oxford University Press, 1991. Ecumenical.

(8) The New Oxford Annotated Bible. Third Edition. Michael D. Coogan, general editor. Marc Z. Brettler, Carol A. Newsom, and Pheme Perkins, associate editors. New Revised Standard Version with the Apocryphal / Deuterocanonical Books. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001. Ecumenical.

(9) The New Oxford Annotated Bible. Augmented Third Edition. Michael D. Coogan, general editor. Marc Z. Brettler, Carol A. Newsom, and Pheme Perkins, associate editors. New Revised Standard Version with the Apocryphal / Deuterocanonical Books. London: Oxford University Press, 2007. Ecumenical.

 (10) The Oxford Study Bible. M. Jack Suggs, general editor. Katharine Doob Sakenfeld and James R. Mueller, associate editors. Revised English Bible with Apocrypha. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992. Ecumenical.

(11) NRSV Cambridge Annotated Study Bible. Howard Clark Kee, editor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.

 (12) Harpercollins Study Bible. Wayne A. Meeks, general editor. Jouette M. Bassler, Werner E. Lemke, Susan Niditch, and Eileen Schuller, associate editors. James Luther Mays, consulting editor. New Revised Standard Version with the Apocryphal / Deuterocanonical Books. New York: HarperCollins, 1993. Ecumenical.

(13) The Harpercollins Study Bible. Fully Revised and Updated. Harold W. Attridge, general editor, revised edition. Wayne A. Meeks, general editor, original edition. Jouette M. Bassler, Werner E. Lemke, Susan Niditch, and Eileen Schuller, associate editors. James Luther Mays, consulting editor. New Revised Standard Version with the Apocryphal / Deuterocanonical Books. New York: HarperSanFrancisco (a division of HarperCollins), 2006. Ecumenical.

(14) The New Interpreter’s Study Bible. Walter J. Harrelson, general editor. Donald Senior, Abraham Smith, Phyllis Trible, and James C. VanderKam, associate editors. New Revised Standard Version with the Apocrypha. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2003. Ecumenical.

It's true that many people consult a study Bible for the purpose of reinforcing their own prejudices. It is better to make use of a study Bible for the quality of the background information it provides, and the insights into the text and the history of its interpretation it transmits.   

There are excellent French, Italian, and Spanish language Study Bibles available, and a number of excellent study editions of the Torah alone. A presentation of them must await another time.

UPDATE: for sharp and insightful comments on the NISB, courtesy of Iyov, go here. For insights into the controversy that rages around the OSBNTP, see the comment section to this post; for more, go here, the comment section here, and last but not least (happy birthday Esteban!), here.

Comments

[ElShaddai Edwards]

John - have you spent any time with the Oxford Study Bible (REB) or the older NEB Oxford Study Edition? The latter was the standard Bible text at my college and I briefly used the REB update. They're useful as an ecumenical alternative to all the NRSV-based editions.

ElShaddai

[Iyov]

I do not agree, I fear.

I do not think the the Jewish Study Bible or Catholic Study Bible are particularly partisan in their interpretation. Both are primarily "Historical-Critical" and not confessional in outook.

Neither do I think that the Bibles listed as tradition-neutral. The NISB, for example, takes a relatively liberal Christian outlook throughout, with plenty of pastoral and even confessional comment. Indeed, it is quite a misrepresentation of the NISB to call it primarily Historical-Critical.

There are also problems with a number of your entries. There was no 1997 edition of the HSB. There was a 1993 edition, but with the editors listed for the 1997 edition. You do not distinguish between the ranks of the editors although you do for the Jewish Study Bible. Furthermore, the 1993 edition was not published by HarperSanFrancisco (note spacing) but by HarperCollins (note spacing) in London (alternatively, New York.)

You fail to list the new (2007) "Augmented Third Edition" of the OAB. The 2001 edition was called the "Third Edition" not the "NRSV Edition." In particular, Metzger and Meeks also edited a NRSV edition (the "Second Edition.") You do not list their edition of the RSV (which is still in print) for some reason, although it enjoys greater popularity than their NRSV edition.

There are two commas before 2006 in the CSB. In the CSB, the title pages only lists two editors, while the facing page lists 14.

I apologize for nitpicking, but "Le bon Dieu est dans le détail." (Alternatively, "Der Teufel steckt im Detail.")

[JohnFH]

Elshaddai,

No, I am not familiar with the REB Study Bibles. I will add those in print to the list. REB is an excellent translation, and deserves to be better known.

Iyov,

as usual, your points are well taken. Your comment referring to the NISB as relatively liberal Christian in outlook throughout, with plenty of pastoral and even confessional comment, is delightful, and in essence uncomfortably true. I almost put in a similar description of NISB, but thought how paradoxical it might seem, given the high number of Catholics, evangelicals, and Jews among NISB's contributors.

In some ways, NISB is comparable to Etz Hayim and Plaut (first or second edition), which I regret not listing, despite their coverage of the Torah alone. As for more conservative Jewish products available, I don't know my way around the neighborhood very well, and furthermore, have not found the ones I've spent time with as helpful as I hoped.

If you choose to post on this topic, I will link to it. You are more up-to-date and better informed on the topic than I am. There is much yet to be said about confessional stance, cross-confessional appeal, and the use of historical-critical and other methods of reading scripture as evidenced in study Bibles on the market today.

As for your nitpicking, I appreciate it. I will work on getting the details right. I could not, however, find a NRSV study Bible edited by Metzger and Meeks, which you refer to as the "Second Edition."

I have an older NOAB, an older HarperCollins, an older Catholic Study Bible, the Oxford Jewish Study Bible, the NISB, and the Orthodox Study Bible (NT and Psalms) on my shelf, and I use them all with profit. Do I wish Catholic, Jewish, and evangelical scholars would bring out more of the riches of the interpretive heritages specific to their traditions when writing for a general audience? Absolutely. But to do this well is not easy.

The whole question of the dominance of the historical-critical method of reading scripture in inter-confessional settings needs to be understood in light of the larger Enlightenment paradigm, which allows and disallows authentic dialogue at the same time. As an evangelical, I am sometimes painfully aware of how much it disallows it. If I'm not mistaken, you will understand what I'm driving at.

[Doug Chaplin]

John, I note in th UK a considerable popularity for the NIV study bible. I would also add to your list the standard edition of the New Jerusalem Bible, which has copious notes and other material. I do, however, see many reasons to be cautious about the whole study Bible phenomenon

[JohnFH]

Doug,

Thanks for this. I've linked to your post and added the NJB study Bible and the NIV Study Bible.

[Kevin P. Edgecomb]

I have the second edition of the New Oxford Annotated Bible, NRSV, and want to say that I strongly prefer it to the third edition of the OAB, if only from the quality of bookmaking employed. The terser comments of the older OAB were, I thought, a strength, rather than the chatty comments of the third (which seemed to have been chasing after the notes of the HarperCollins Study Bible, which was ultimately a hit-or-miss affair). The caution and wisdom of the editors and annotators of the second edition seemed thrown to the wind. While the first and second editions explicitly placed themselves within that tradition following on the King James to Revised to Revised Standard Version, the third lost its moorings, or rather tossed them overboard. Likewise, the work of Metzger and others, translators/editors cum annotators, in the first and second is invaluable, and is not replaced in value by the selection of annotators in the third.

And need we specify that it's hardly to be expected that any Bible containing the New Testament should not be considered to be of interest to a Jewish audience? The hand-wringing displayed over what to call the New Testament (and Apocrypha, for that matter) in some of these volumes is ridiculous, when considering the mere presence of a New Testament is sufficient to mark such a volume as a Christian Bible. Sheesh.

[JohnFH]

Kevin,

Excellent points. The very best homiletic commentary ages well, but most seems trite before the ink dries.

[Iyov]

And need we specify that it's hardly to be expected that any Bible containing the New Testament should not be considered to be of interest to a Jewish audience? The hand-wringing displayed over what to call the New Testament (and Apocrypha, for that matter) in some of these volumes is ridiculous, when considering the mere presence of a New Testament is sufficient to mark such a volume as a Christian Bible.

I do not agree. First, I note the hand-wringing is usually over what to call the Hebrew Scriptures (the term New Testament seems fairly universally adopted -- although I think that Christian Scriptures is more accurate because a wide variety of Christians still regard the "Old Testament" as valid scripture.) Similarly the term "Apocrypha" is offensive to a variety of Catholics and Orthodox for the same reason that referring to the Gospels as "myth" would be offensive to many fundamentalist Christians. The plain meaning of "apocryphal" is "of doubtful authenticity." (It is not lost on me that you are Orthodox and a former Catholic, but your use of the term does not immunize the rest of us, for the same reason that the use of the term "Oriental" by some of East Asian descent does not authorize the rest of us to use that term.)

The NOAB has a significant presence as a secular study Bible -- it has a "college edition" and is often used as a textbook in secular universities. Arguably, a wide swathe of students -- not only Christians -- will study the Bible in these contexts.

Similarly, the New Testament is a document of significant interest to those studying Second Temple Judaism, and even for some studying Tannaic writings.

Furthermore, if the presence of the New Testament makes the NOAB a "Christian Bible", then doesn't the presence of the Apocryphal works make it a Catholic/Orthodox Bible, and thus justifies the Catholic/Orthodox "Deuterocanonical" terminology?

[Iyov]

I mistyped -- it was Murphy and Metzger who edited the Second Edition of the NOAB.

[JohnFH]

I want to emphasize a comment by Kevin, that the HarperCollins study Bibles are hit-and-miss affairs, but extend it to the other study Bibles as well.

I have the first edition of the HarperCollins Study Bible on my shelf. The quality of the comment on many books far outstrips that of the second NOAB, which I also have. Superior HCB offerings include, for literary sensitivity: Genesis (Joel Rosenberg) and Ruth (Adele Berlin); for theological sensitivity: Hosea (James Luther Mays) and Psalms (Patrick Miller); for text-critical expertise: 1 and 2 Samuel (P. Kyle McCarter); for comment from the most qualified person for the job: Leviticus (Jacob Milgrom); Isaiah (J.J.M. Roberts); Song of Solomon (Michael V. Fox); and 2 Esdras (Michael Stone).

[voxstefani]

John, I would caution you against the use of the "Orthodox Study Bible" as an authentic representative of the Orthodox approach to the Scriptures, not only because it contains quite a number of errors, but chiefly because it betrays throughout a lack of conformity to what in our circles is often called the "mind of the Church." This is only to be expected, given that the origins of the project lie with a group of Evangelicals who eventually became Orthodox, but that were not such during the preparation of this volume, and only newly Orthodox at its publication.

I encourage you to read in this regard the excellent (but searing) review of the OSB by Archimandrite Ephrem Lash of Manchester (the Orthodox brother of the notorious Nicholas Lash of Cambridge, and a philologist of note).

As for the rest, I note that I much prefer the second edition of the NOAB over the third, which I brought back to the bookstore short of a month after having bought it. I adore my copy of the REB Oxford Study Bible and would likely bring it as my sole Bible to a deserted island, but I do not generally admit this in public. Also, I have never understood everyone's apparent fawning over the HarperCollins Study Bible, which I hardly ever crack open―and then, it is generally for one of its fairer offerings, which you list above. I can understand, however, the appeal of something which says "Society of Biblical Literature" right on the dustcover, which is, I suspect, why I have one at all.

Also, note that the NIV Study Bible (which I find quite useful on occasion, but less so now than a few years ago) is also available in NASB and KJV editions.

Esteban

[JohnFH]

Esteban,

I didn't know that about the Orthodox Study Bible. That's important information.

I'll have to add the info you pass on about evangelical study Bibles. Half of the avid Bible readers in congregations I've served have the NIV Study Bible, but I confess I've never given it a close look.

[Iyov]

I am hardly in a position to defend the Orthodox Study Bible (which I do not think is a particularly scholarly Bible) but I must admit that Archimandrite Ephrem Lash's comments (which I have seen before) are so over-the-top and filled with inaccuracies as to render them useless.

Lash's sets a snide tone in his first paragraph: "It must be clearly stated from the outset that the whole feel of this volume is wrong. It feels far too much like a piece of evangelical propaganda decked out in the trappings of Orthodoxy, like an eighteenth century New England chapel or meeting house with a golden onion dome stuck over the pediment of the porch." I think this statement puts Lash's entire review into perspective.

Lash's 2nd through 6th paragraphs attack the NKJV translation. Well, I am in agreement there -- I do not like the NKJV translation either. However, let me ask: where is the great English Orthodox translation of Scripture? No less a personage than Bishop Tikhon recommends the KJV and the NKJV for use. I would ask Lash: short of a completely new translation, which translation would you have preferred to have the OSBNTP use? Lash also attacks use of red letter in the Bible -- this is a common failing of Bibles -- but it hardly seems worthy of his outburst.

In his 7th paragraph, Lash attacks the OSBNTP for its color maps. Certainly, an astute reader such as Lash could hardly have failed to note the Thomas Nelson 1983 copyright notice on each of the maps. Now certainly, it would have been better to have used maps from an Orthodox atlas (does one exist?) but I suspect the Nelson maps were available for free. Moreover, the comment about the NT reading plans is just odd: the Orthodox reading plan is included since, there 10 page lectionary preceding the 3 page "bible reading plan."

In his 8th paragraph, Lash attacks the prayers, which he say contain "traditional material" for not mentioning Theotokos. I find it hard to believe that Lash actually read the prayers -- right there on p. 757 (fourth paragraph from the bottom) and p. 761 (top paragraph) is the prayer.

The 9th paragraph discusses Bishop Kallistos's contribution, so Lash must abate his criticism. Still, he needs to include the mandatory non-specific criticism, so he writes "It is a pity that the sort of approach recommended by the Bishop seems not to have been properly taken into account by the other contributors."

In the 10th paragraph, in commenting on the Lectionary, he begins by praising it, but then criticizes it: he objects to leaving out the eleven gospels (even though, as he notes, only Matins for major feasts are given -- is this so surprising in a brief lectionary?) Lash properly criticizes specific dates that show up in the Lectionary (an obvious editing error). The real source of his discomfort soon emerges: "The Lectionary is basically the Slav one." Now, I would suggest that the editors could have been more careful in identifying the lectionary, but I hardly think that choosing a particular denomination's lectionary calls into question the validity of the work.

In the 11th paragraph attacks the essay "Introducing the Orthodox Church." One might wonder at Lash's savage denunciation of this essay -- but a glance at the essay reveals the real problem is in the second sentence "Many people have heard of the Russian Orthodox Church ...." -- once again, the problem seems to be sectarian.

In the 12th paragraph, we are told that the glossary is flawed because it says "Abba" does not mean "Daddy." I'm sorry, but I can assure Lash that is exactly what it does mean! Lash grudgingly concedes that most of the entries are "well-done." Lash also liked the index (!!) but criticizes a listing of the Seventy for distinguishing two Marks -- if he looked more closely at the page, he would see that this was not implying two Marks at all but was merely the way the page was laid out.

In the 13th paragraph, Lash attacks an essay by one of the editors as being "rambling and incoherent" although surprisingly despite its incoherence it "makes a number of useful points." I'm wondering at this point who is more incoherent!

In the 14th paragraph, Lash attacks the table "Harmony of the Gospels" -- apparently Lash believes synoptic study is not worthy of Orthodox. He also criticizes the mini-NKJV concordance because it covers the whole Bible (!!!!) Does this seem to you like a guy with a chip on his shoulder? I mean -- really -- this is a concordance! If the Orthodox share a translation with their fellow Christians, must they produce their own concordances?

The 15th-18th paragraphs discuss the annotations. Lash contradicts himself repeatedly here: the notes are "helpful" and "dull." Lash argues that the notes are a low level and not very sophisticated, and I must agree with him -- but does that mean there is no beginner's Bible in Orthodoxy? Wouldn't a more advanced student be working in original languages, or referring directly to the work of the Fathers? The longer notes, we are told, are "extremely valuable" but Lash gets his knickers in a knot because of a note entitled "Mary" -- although the note itself refers to "Theotokos" and clearly asserts that is the proper name for the Orthodox to call Mary. For better or worse, "Mary" is the name used in the NKJV translation.

The 19th paragraph attacks the icons -- and why? Because they "stem from America."

I find myself wondering after Lash's last paragraph -- do Orthodox shun the newly converted? Is Lash correct that the only true Orthodox are those who have been Orthodox for centuries? The face of Orthodoxy put forward by Lash seems rather unwelcoming. Despite his attitude, I suppose I could have taken his arguments more seriously had Lash actually read this work seriously rather than making so many factually incorrect statements about the volume.

[Kevin P. Edgecomb]

Good points, Iyov. I wasn't clear. The NOAB is available in editions without the Apocrypha, a term I use for the simple reason that folks will know what I'm talking about. My own preferred terminology of "popular expansive Biblical literature" is not so catchy, and more work to type. I hadn't intended to pretend to be validating the use of the word "apocrypha" at all. If I were to be required to endorse a term, it would be αναγινωσκομενοι, 'readables', but that's simply outré.

Anyhow, one simply cannot buy a NOAB without a New Testament. How many Jews would even be interested in buying such a Bible? When I've talked with Jewish friends, their Bibles of choice (those used for classes aside) have never been Christian translations, but one of the JPS editions. I never even knew any to own the BHS! They prefer other rabbinically recommended editions, by Koren and such.

Also, you might not be aware that there are some nutjobs out there that discuss renaming the New Testament to Second Covenant or somesuch so as not to offend our Jewish friends. That's just silly, and that's what I was writing about. Unlike them, I'm not a person who thinks "old" is necessarily worse than "new." If anything, it's the contrary! But that's the tempest in a teacup that I was so sharp about. Sorry to have been unclear.

On Archimandrite Ephraim Lash's critique, I think he's most upset with the OSB volume (and remember, the origin of the review was an intra-Orthodox publication, so you're seeing some family bickering there) for its having not been the best presentation of Orthodoxy to the outside world. It's kind of namby-pamby, not really scholarly, and not sufficiently devotional particularly in a Patristic manner, which truly Orthodox commentary should be and usually is, except in the case of this Bible! It's frustrating that such a great opportunity was missed, is what I think he's trying to express, and I entirely, 1-zillion percent concur. Esteban was right to bring up the critiques, which I wasn't sufficiently comfortable with doing. It comes down to this: Is something better than nothing? Well, yes and no. So maybe. Or maybe not. So let's be grudgingly complimentary and pick on it, too! I think that's what's going on with that critique.

[voxstefani]

Iyov,

That Father Ephrem writes bombastically and with unabated flamboyance is undeniable, but I think you're getting bogged down in details and thus missing the forest for the trees.

The key to understanding Father Ephrem's protestations, I think, is his comment that he must again report on a missed opportunity. This Bible, with an impressive "overview committee" listed on the frontispiece (must of whom, however, never saw a page of the project and were unaware of belonging to any such committee), sets out to 1) embody the Orthodox Christian approach to the Scriptures and 2) be a suitable edition for personal and homiletical use by the Orthodox. It accomplished neither of these things. And the problem is precisely that it's a "piece of evangelical propaganda decked out in the trappings of Orthodoxy," however snide one might find such a comment and its accompanying illustrations. So you're quite right in noting that this comment sets the tone for the whole review, because it states the chief recurring theme of the whole piece: that at the root of all the problems of the OSB lies what we might call a "worldview deficiency."

Clearly Father Ephrem has a sketchy understanding of the politics of American Bible publishing, but I don't think his comments on the NKJV are therefore irrelevant or superfluous. His point that NKJV New Testament needs rather thorough correction before it can be called an "Orthodox New Testament" is quite correct, and since many folks (particularly Stateside) seem to consider that is so only because it's used in this Bible, this fact really does bear noting (and that repeatedly!). In any case, short of a complete translation, the least that should be done is to produce an Orthodox recension of a text such as the NKJV's, much like the Roman Catholics did in producing the RSV, Catholic Edition. Of course, it is unlikely that Nelson would have agreed to this, but this does not automatically remove the deficiencies of the NKJV for Orthodox use that Father Ephrem notes.

(Incidentally, I fail to see how Bishop Tikhon's pastoral judgment on this matter, which in any case was restricted to his own diocese while he was its ruling Bishop, could be weightier than Father Ephrem's, given that His Grace lacks the latter's training in Biblical philology. But the point is moot, given that Bishop Tikhon, a careful student of all matters linguistic, does not disagree with Father Ephrem at all: His Grace notes that neither the KJV nor the NKJV are "completely acceptable," and encourages that they be used only as a temporary solution to the problem of the lack of Orthodox translations into English.)

Speaking of Bishops, that Father Ephrem does not criticize Bishop Kallistos' piece has little to do with any perceived need to "abate his criticism" (on account of what?), but rather this is so because Bishop Kallistos' piece is truly a gem. And the "mandatory non-specific criticism" of which you speak, once again, draws our attention to the "worldview deficiencies" at the core of the OSB project, which as Father Ephrem wistfully notes, would have been significantly lessened if the principles articulated in Bishop Kallistos' piece would have been consistently heeded.

Your impression of the OSB's lectionary is mistaken in that this is indeed a full lectionary for every day of the year, but one clearly prepared without an adequate acquaintance with the interaction of the many cycles that converge in the cycle of ferial and festal readings €”the interactions of which are, as one might expect, both highly variable and minutely prescribed. (This, again, is not surprising given the lack of liturgical experience of the project team at the time of preparation.) From this vantage point, it is indeed surprising that the 11 Matins Gospels, which are read without fail in unbroken succession throughout the year, are nowhere given. What you call an "obvious editing error" is really not such at all, but rather betrays the actual source of this lectionary: not the service and rubrics books, but rather an annual calendar for a given year (probably the popular "St Herman Calendar," which is of Russian provenance) whose readings were reprinted wholesale into this lectionary without taking into account the general variables given in the rubrics. I fail to see how pointing this out is "sectarian" in nature.

That the second sentence of the article "Introducing the Orthodox Church" says that many people have heard of the Russian Orthodox Church is an unlikely cause for Father Ephrem's criticism. After all, the remainder of that very sentence reads "or the Greek Orthodox Church," to which Father Ephrem belongs, "which was born centuries earlier." And in any case, the team that produced the OSB belongs neither to the Russian or Greek Churches, but rather to the Church of Antioch! Thus, it is very hard for me to make any sense at all of these cries of sectarian prejudice (particularly when Father Ephrem wishes, towards the end of the article, that the ROCOR [Russian Orthodox Church Abroad] should have had a role in the publication of this volume, so as to lessen its "worldview deficiencies"!). A glance to anything further than the first part of the second sentence of this article, however, will put in evidence what Father Ephrem's real objections are, some of which he himself summarizes in his review. This summary may be found immediately following the sentence where he describes this piece as "tendentious and wholly unnecessary," €”namely, after the first sentence.

There are a couple things that make me think you're looking at a different printing of the OSB than that which Father Ephrem is reviewing. In my copy of the OSB, which is indeed the first printing, there are no mentions whatever to the Mother of God or the saints in the morning and evening prayers. Further, in the list of the Seventy Apostles, there are indeed two Marks listed, one after the other, with different feast days given. Again, this must be different from the printing you have, for not even the pagination that you give coincides with that of the book in front of me.

The comment about the iconography stemming from America might seem petty to those without, but it is really not such at all. There most certainly is within what I call "militant Americanist Orthodoxy" a culture of ugly iconography, which is perfectly illustrated by the dreadful icon of the Harrowing of Hell in the OSB. This is hardly the place to address the theology of the icon, but suffice it to say that the bastardization of iconographic aesthetics is theologically problematic on many levels, €”all the more so when this happens because Kentigernmungo Jones, a master of the Etch-A-Sketch, is now Orthodox and fancies himself an iconographer.

Father Ephrem is rightly troubled that, in an Orthodox Bible, the Mother of God is simply referred to as "Mary." The reason for this is that, as Kevin Edgecomb has brilliantly noted elsewhere, the regula fidei "is truly an entire complicated mindset involving behavior, action, belief, vocabulary, and writings." And so we return again to "the main point of what we have been saying": that this volume has serious "worldview deficiencies" and that it embodies hardly at all an Orthodox approach to the Scriptures, simply because time and again it finds itself at variance with the comprehensive regula fidei €”again, what in our circles is often called "the mind of the Church."

The last paragraph at which you wonder articulates more fully this latter point. The acquisition of this mind, of this complex and comprehensive regula fidei, simply does not happen overnight: it is a lifelong process. And it does indeed take centuries to acquire in corporate contexts (but not of course for individuals, though this process is greatly helped if it occurs in a corporate context thoroughly integrated to the mind of the Church). That this should seem unwelcoming comes as no surprise, and yet, all are welcome to join in the unbroken stream of the Tradition to be shaped and claimed by it, €”though of course, not all are willing to €˜leave all things and follow€™ where our Fathers have lead.€ This is the whole point. A book such as this, which is €œthe product of people who, with the very best of intentions, are going too fast too soon, is symptomatic of a much greater ailment, and Father Ephrem'€™s review is as much a critique of, and a searing corrective to, the volume in question as of the context which produced it.

Thus I must again caution against anyone referencing the Orthodox Study Bible as an authentic witness to the Orthodox Christian approach to the Scriptures, because this decidedly it is not.

Esteban

[Kevin P. Edgecomb]

Very well said, Esteban!

[voxstefani]

Thanks, Kevin! At least I now know that I'm not totally off base. ;-)

We must have been writing at the same time, because I missed your comment. Clearly I am in agreement with you, particularly with your observation that it is "not sufficiently devotional particularly in a Patristic manner, which truly Orthodox commentary should be and usually is, except in the case of this Bible."

I apologize for the many stylistic infelicities and for the few typos in my comment. My dear Godson called as I was about to start proofreading, and I mistakenly hit post! Ah, well. :-)

[JohnFH]

Esteban,

I'll take a moment to weed out typos, as I always try to do as a favor (not always appreciated) to commenters.

Esteban and Kevin,

And how about the complete Orthodox study Bible in preparation? Any ideas about what we should expect?

[Kevin P. Edgecomb]

We can hope for better than in the first version, I would think, knowing that at least some of the criticism over the last decade must have hit home. I hope so, anyway. We'll just have to wait and see. It should be available in the spring of 2008.

[JohnFH]

The project's site suggests they are preparing a translation and notes to the Septuagint, not the MT. Goodbye, NKJV, if that is true. I'm hopeful.

[voxstefani]

The Orthodox Study Bible, Old Testament uses the NKJV as a "boilerplate" and changes it wherever it differs from the LXX. In this it hardly differs from the NETS, which does the very same thing with the NRSV. There is, however, one pivotal difference: the NETS seeks to reflect in English the "translation Greek" quality of the LXX, whereas the OSB-OT seeks to produce a standard literary translation.

(For the New Testament, it should be noted, no changes are projected, so that that text used will again be that of the NKJV.)

I have two main concerns about the OSB-OT project:

1) First, the matter of textual basis. In an earlier version of the lxx.org site it was stated that their base text of the Septuagint was Rahlf's. (No information was given concerning such important matters as which text would be followed for Esther, Judges, and the like.) Needless to say, Rahlf's (semi-)critical edition is not the canonical text of the Orthodox Church, which should be the basis of any Orthodox Bible. I reflected a bit on this matter in a recent post.

2) With the exception of a handful among them, the translators seem dangerously underqualified for the task of Biblical translation. As we know, the sophisticated philological, linguistic and exegetical skills that such work demands cannot acquired in "three years of Greek"!

Yet I remain hopeful that the OSB-OT will be an essentially correct (please, God!) of its chosen Greek text, and that its usefulness will outweigh any errors. As for the notes, I only hope they're not inane. You see, by setting the bar that low, I'm sure to be pleased with whatever they print! ;-)

Esteban

[voxstefani]

Oh, John, thank you for taking care of the typos! I posted a fully corrected version on my comments here.

[JohnFH]

Thanks, Esteban, for helpful comments as always.

[Iyov]

You folks will enjoy P. Thomas Soroka's comments to one of my posts.

[JohnFH]

Soroka's last comment in particular is important. Whatever flaws the OSBNTP has, it marks an advance over the status quo ante for many English-speaking Orthodox believers.

[Mission Lawrence]

One you haven't mentioned is the "NET Bible" (net.bible.org) with a huge number of textual notes. Often it unlocks the reason various translations differ. Available free online or in print and electronic versions.