Orthodox New Testament

[Gideon]

I've been asking this on other forums...what are your thoughts on "The Orthodox New Testament" by Holy Apostles Convent, Dormition Skete?

[尼古拉前执事]

Dear Gideon,

Personally I think it is the best New Testament ever done in English. It is full of footnotes from the Church Fathers and does not have the theologic errors of the Orthodx Study Bible.

Do you own the 2 volume set? If not I reccomend buying it

In fact on the portal we have it listed as the book of the month (although it comes in 2 books) If you order them through the link, you get them cheaper than if you ordered them directly from the convent and also get free shipping!

[Justin Kissel]

I agree with Nicholas, I think it's the best Orthodox Bible--and really the best Bible period--in the English language. I sometimes use the NKJV when quoting a lot online, but for a truly Orthodox rendering and commentary, that Bible is the place to go. Even the introductions are good reading for the Orthodox Christian, since they weren't afraid to speak as Orthodox Christians (whereas most Bibles try to appear "objective," and so they don't say much more than a bunch of technical, grammatical, and critical stuff.) As an example, they quote Saint John Chrysostom's lament about people in his time having a lack of knowledge of the Scriptures... it's stuff like that that helps you connect today's Scripture reading with the mind of the Church, because it opens you up into the past (and this is continued throughout the translation, especially in the footnotes, which contain many passages from the Church Fathers)

[Nektarios14]

It is full of footnotes from the Church Fathers and does not have the theologic errors of the Orthodx Study Bible.

What kind of errors are in the Orthodox Study Bible?

[Mary Kissel]

Just thought I'd add that I agree with Nick as well... The ONT is the best Orthodox Bible, it also is easy to read... the words aren't tiny like some Bibles are and it has a book mark attached to the Bible as well so you can mark easier where you're at in the Bible and the pages are sturdier so if you write on them it won't bleed through to the next page. I also suggest buying this 2vol. NT Bible... it's very good!

MaryCecilia

[尼古拉前执事]

Off hand I recall that the notes erroneously said that in the early Church people were bpatize don in Jesus' name, but that was only done by heretics or the ignorant.

While the Orthodox Study Bible recently published has many valuable features, it is not without its problems.

[Justin Kissel]

I'm aware of three negative reviews/critiques of this Bible, one being by Priest Seraphim Johnson, one by Archimandrite Ephrem, and the longest one is by Hieromonk Haralampos. I do not suggest reading these reviews/critiques uncritically, but I do think they have some good points to make. In the spirit of being even-handed, though, I'll mention a few things (using Archimadrite Ephrem for examples) that I don't agree with.

Archimandrite Ephrem seems to me to be way too nit-picky in what he chooses to mention (and I think the questionable nature of some of his objections hurts the overall potency of the rest of his review). We can see a questionable objection when he says:

The volume ends with a 'Harmony of the Gospels', a sort of 'Write your own Diatessaron' or 'Be your own Tatian', the usefulness of which is obscure

Many Bible's--including the Holy Apostles Convent NT mentioned earlier--have this "Bible help" today, and it's indeed very helpful if you decide to use it. Often in commentaries (such as St. John Chrysostom's) we find the Fathers mentioning a passage, and then discussing how the other Gospel writers wrote about the same event. This can be very profitable in helping to understand what a passage means, because it's almost like having a way to draw more details out of the passage (simply by looking at what the other Gospel writers said)--this, I think, is what Saint Ireneaus had in mind with his idea of "interpreting Scripture by Scripture" (I don't think this saint had in mind what the Reformers had in mind). Another example of his being nit-picky is this:

What then of the Study Guide itself? Some of it looks like unaltered evangelical material, like the chapter entitled 'How to read the New Testament in a year'. Many of us prefer to follow the Church's way of reading.

What does that mean? Certainly there is a standard set of texts for each day, but does that mean that there is a way that can be so exclusively called "the Church's way" that all other ways are excluded, or looked down upon? The answer, of course, is that there are many different ways that Orthodox Christians read the Bible, and even if we only went by the suggestions of saints we'd have numerous different methods for reading Scripture. I see no reason to attack a "read it in a year" method, unless it's demonstrated that this is somehow harmful to the reader.

Anyway, you can read the reviews if you like, I found them very helpful, if not altogether agreeable. If you don't want to do all that reading, we could reproduce some of their points here (though obviously it'd be best to read them in context). God Bless!

Justin