Vox Nova At The Library: The Orthodox Study Bible [Slight Update]
Recently, a new translation of the Bible has been published, and it is one that people might want to consider obtaining for themselves: The Orthodox Study Bible. Yes, one might own a previous edition, but it was only the New Testament and the Psalms and it contained only a few study notes to help the reader. Now, the Bible is complete, and it provides an important contribution to the English speaking world by offering a new, modern translation of the Septuagint for the Old Testament.
The East views the Septuagint as an inspired translation of the Tanakh, as superior to the later Masoretic Text, and as the text which is to be used for the Old Testament. Of course it is known that the New Testament writers used it (not exclusively, to be sure; there are some quotes which reflect the proto-Masoretic tradition). But what people who are unfamiliar with the Septuagint do not know is that the texts of several books of the Tanakh differ in the Septuagint from the later Masoretic texts; sometimes it is only minor differences, sometimes it is major. One of my favorite examples of this comes from the end of Job:
So Job died, old and full of days. It is written that he will rise with those whom the Lord resurrects.
This man is described in the Syriac book as living in the land of Ausitis, on the boarders of Edom and Arabia. Previously his name was Jobab. He took an Arabian wife and begot a son named Ennon. But he himself was the son of his father, Zare, one of the sons of Esau, and of his mother, Bosorra. Thus he was the fifth son from Abraham.
Now these were the kings who reigned in Edom, over which country he also ruled. First, there was Balak the son of Beor, and the name of his city was Dennaba. But after Balak, there was Jobab, who is called Job. After him, there was Asom, who was the ruler out of the country of Teman. After him, there was Adad the son of Barad, who destroyed Midian in the plain of Moab; and the name of his city was Gethaim. Now his friends who came to him were: Eliphaz, of the children of Esau, kind of the Temanites; Bildad, ruler of the Shuhites; and Zophar, king of the Minians. (Job 42:17-22; SAAS).
As can be seen, the Septuagint provides information as to who Job was and where it was he lived and reigned. More importantly, the text makes a clear declaration of the resurrection of the dead (explaining why this passage is read on Holy Friday in the East). There are many additions like this to the books of the Old Testament throughout the Septuagint, although, it must be noted, some aspects of the Masoretic Text do not find themselves in the Septuagint (sometimes, whole chapters are missing). Which version is the most accurate? That’s up to debate, since we have proto-Masoretic and proto-Septuagint versions of the Tanakh in Hebrew, attesting to the fact that there were multiple Biblical traditions even in pre-Christian times. Both, then, should be considered important, and both should be examined when studying the Scripture. And it is for this reason alone that one interested in Biblical study should have a copy of the Septuagint, either in the Greek, or in English, especially because the Greek text often clarifies ambiguities found in the Hebrew.
The rest of The Orthodox Study Bible is a fine example of what a “Study Bible” should be like. It provides significant notes throughout, based in part on patristic understanding of Scripture, and emphasizing Orthodox dogmatics (Christology, the Trinity, Soteriology, et. al). I think they are at their best when they trace the way the Old Testament prefigures the New, while, for the most part, they are at their worst when they ignore contemporary Biblical research and the gains made in modern exegetics. But that’s not the point of this edition of the Bible, and so, it is only a minor issue. All in all, it’s not the notes which make me suggest this edition of the Bible, but the text of the Old Testament.
[UPDATE]: For some reason, I didn’t read one of the early pages of the OSB, and when I did, I found something slightly disappointing. While the text of the OT is indeed following the LXX, the translators often had the Brenton and the NKJV OT to the side as tools to help in their translation. And when they felt there was little to no difference between the NKJV with the LXX, they went with the NKJV translation. It’s a minor quibble; they still work with the LXX and add what is in the LXX into the OSB, however, it makes the translation slightly less than what I originally thought it was meant to be. Since I did not possess a NKJV already, I did not notice this fact; if I did, I probably would have noticed the way the OSB borrows from the NKJV OT.
Trackbacks
Comments are closed.
Fascinating overview, Henry!
I particularly appreciated your example of Job. I never knew about the alternate ending– as many times as I have read and reread that Book.
I need to pick up the Study Bible sometime soon.
BTW, did you savor von Balthasar’s section on Job in his Glory of the Lord, vol. 6 as much as I did?
I even used that discussion in a class presentation I had to give on Ricoeur’s handling of Job and the Suffering Servant and Son of Man figures in his Symbolism of Evil–in a graduate philosophy class on the latter text.
Mark
Years ago, when I was an undergraduate at IU Bloomington, I first got a copy of the Brenton LXX (uncritical edition of the Greek with a translation). The translation was only barely acceptable: often he would miss out the Greek and try to render things similar to the Hebrew. But nonetheless, there were points he couldn’t do it: when the LXX had something in it not in the Hebrew. The ending of Job was my first experience of this, and from it, I looked back and noticed there were various aspects of Job which were different: extra verses at points, lack of verses at others, and it made me skim through the LXX and find a few other places where this was true. I forget exactly where, but I think it was either in the Chronicles or Kings where this was significant. It made me appreciate even more why the LXX was prefered, although as I pointed out above, I think one must accept both proto-LXX and proto-Masoretic traditions as authentic, making both the LXX and Masoretic texts authentic and should be viewed side by side.
The Book of Job, with someone like Balthasar, is always a great book to explore; it’s one of the most profound text of the OT as a whole, where the full drama of the human predicament is played at to its fullest. It can be quite shocking to look at it – how did this get into the canon of Scripture? Yet, that it did, I think says much for the canon of Scripture, because it would not be the text one would otherwise place in if one wanted to end up with a religion that explains everything. Of course the Christian can see much more than this involved with the text, as Balthasar does show well. In fact, I think it is one of the books of Scripture a dogmatic/systematic theologian will have a heads up on understanding the text then one following a pristine “scientific” exegetical approach, although the other is needed as well.
I have been thinking of buying this. Anything is a imporvement over the New American :(.
By the way on a related note I saw this recently that was interesting
The Gentile Mission and the Septuagint (LXX)
http://cantuar.blogspot.com/2008/06/gentile-mission-and-septuagint-lxx.html
JH
The page is semi-right, but I think incomplete. The LXX has problems (how and when it was translated, for example, comes to mind), and not all of the NT texts require the LXX for the quotes to be valid, and indeed, some come from the Masoretic tradition. It’s a weird situation we find in the first century, but I think this oddity is fundamental to understanding the debates of tradition and interpretation of tradition we find in the Gospels: there was no one agreed text or doctrinal system in 1st century Judaism. The Apostles and the NT, it seems, follows this ambiguity, although with a general preference to the Greek (but we shouldn’t infer too much from this; it could be because it was easier to copy from the Greek when writing in the Greek than to translate a text anew).
It’s why, although I am Eastern and think the LXX is the superior tradition (in its Hebrew root) I consider it important to look at least the two major traditions (there are actually others, too) as complementary.
Henry,
How do you feel about the New Jerusalem Bible? Just wondering.
Anything is a imporvement over the New American
Because Fr Neuhaus says so?
Are you referring to the regular NAB or the Catholic Study Bible which uses the NAB?
Mr. Campbell,
I use the NJB for my reading FWIW. I don’t do exigesis and other fun things though, so I could see how some would view it as deficient for those needs.
Gerald
I’ve not looked at the New Jerusalem. I have a copy of the Jerusalem, mostly because of the sections Tolkien worked with (Jonah and some commentary on other translations). It seemed to be ok. I mostly prefer the RSV/NRSV, and now the OSB for the OT (because of its use of the LXX).
I have the NT and Psalms version. It’s not a new translation, but just the New King James version. I believe this bible was put together by protestant converts to orthodoxy, so the study notes that make reference to the Catholic Church seem to me not so much the Orthodox position, but rather the standard Evangelical position.
Chas
The new edition is a new translation. At least in regards to the OT. The old edition wasn’t, since it didn’t have the OT. That’s the point and why I brought this up: the OSB now has the LXX for the OT, making the OT a new translation, and far improved over the 1990s edition. And an important contribution because it we now have the LXX rendered in modern English.
Henry and MZ,
Thanks.
Henry,
I just looked at the sample page of Psalms and this appears to be a great bible. I will have to purchase it. My wife recently purchased for me the “Archaelogical bible” that reviews the history and culture of biblical times. There is some amazing Orthodox and Protestant scholarship that Catholics should not ignore!
Michael I am generally referring to both. As to Father Neuhaus I have ran accross his criticism and I think that is valid. I am very worried that perhaps we are chained to this Translation because well that is how the Bishops Conference makes money. SOmething that we are reminded of on occasion when some bloggers get a email asking them not quote the Translation!!
However Neuhaus is not the reason I very much dislike it. I do have a brain of my own. Many of the footbotes are misleading and indeed not very helpful. I guess as a Former Baptist I actually became used to “Study BIbles” that had good and revelant footnotes and corss references that could be used to learn something. I hate to say both version fail on both counts
Greg
Right, there are good scholars from all three traditions (or four, if you want to include Jewish scholars as well) which must not be ignored. If you are interested in this kind of material, I would suggest looking into Martin Hengel (if you have not already). More than any other, he has helped establish our understanding of the first century (although, of course, he is not infallble, and people do rightfully disagree on aspects of his reconstruction).
I feel I ought to toss in here that one of the main reasons for the increasing respect for the textual tradition issuing in the LXX, and a lessening of old style Rabbinic/Calvinist MT fetishism, is the evidence from Qumran, which has often supported LXX readings over and against their MT rivals, as well as more generally showing the great variety of texts circulating in Second Temple Judaism at the time of the origins of Christianity (not to mention disporving the Pharisaic/Protestant theory of a closed and shorter OT canon at the same time). The fact that Psalm 110, for example, is at times almost untranslatable in the MT is perhaps not entirely a coincidence.
Good text critics on all this include people like Eugene Ulrich or Emmanuel Tov, among many fine scholars. Catholics need to be more aware of this exciting text-critical ferment, not least because it helps in discussions with Evangleicals about such matters.
Stuart, right — as I said, the evidence for the proto-LXX Hebrew tradition behind the Greek has been shown and provides why the LXX is an important document for canon studies. There really was no one Hebrew manuscript tradition but many, though I think the Proto-Masoretic and Proto-LXX ones are the two most important.