Comments on: Vox Nova At The Library: The Orthodox Study Bible [Slight Update]

By: Weekly News and Thoughts from Around the Blogosphere, 6-27 | The Church of Jesus Christ

Wed, 01 Jul 2009 12:48:49 +0000

[...] I have it and appreciate this review. [...]

By: Henry Karlson

Henry Karlson — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 12:07:19 +0000

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.

By: Stuart

Stuart — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 11:36:39 +0000

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.

By: jh

jh — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 17:33:47 +0000

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

By: Henry Karlson

Henry Karlson — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 17:33:47 +0000

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).

By: Greg

Greg — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 17:27:54 +0000

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!

By: Gerald L. Campbell

Gerald L. Campbell — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 16:56:11 +0000

Henry and MZ,

Thanks.

By: Henry Karlson

Henry Karlson — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 16:54:48 +0000

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.

By: Chas

Chas — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 16:45:48 +0000

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.

By: Henry Karlson

Henry Karlson — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 16:39:32 +0000

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).

By: M.Z. Forrest

M.Z. Forrest — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 16:36:54 +0000

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.

By: Michael J. Iafrate

Michael J. Iafrate — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 16:25:41 +0000

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?