The Orthodox Study Bible, Hardcover: Ancient Christianity Speaks to Today's World

For purposes of full disclosure allow me to say, first of all, that I'm a practicing Catholic Christian of the Latin Rite who hopes to grant a unique perspective regarding the offerings of this particular Bible. I've been in possession of the leather-bound edition since I received it two months after my original pre-order. It's taken me a couple years, but I've really come to love it. As I mentioned in the title of this review, the Orthodox Study Bible has recently dethroned my trusty, old-RSV, New Oxford Annotated Bible as my study Bible of choice. I had little notion this would happen. I do have an extensive collection of Bibles in various translations that I use for comparative study; but probably like yourself, I also have a preferred Bible to go to by default for prayerful reading. Over the last two years, I just found myself picking up the OSB more and more and the NOAB less and less. Allow me to articulate exactly why:The case for the Septuagint Old Testament:The unique and most compelling reason to acquire the OSB: it is the only complete Bible in English to be published with the Greek OT right next to the NT. If you have one of those reference Bibles, I'm sure you've noticed that many of the OT quotes used in the NT mismatch when you actually look them up, sometimes to a great degree--this is because Jesus and the disciples apparently quoted from the Septuagint Greek, as opposed to other Hebrew sources, a vast majority of the time. This is so, because Greek was the common language of antiquity in the region and the Septuagint translation (which includes the apocryphal/deuterocanonical "hidden books" of the "second canon") was completed more than a century before Christ's birth. By the time of Jesus' ministry, it was in widespread use by Jews throughout the Diaspora, particularly outside of Palestine and, especially, Jerusalem by those who couldn't speak or read Hebrew. Bear in mind: the Hebrew OT, from which 99% of modern English Bibles are translated, relies on Masoretic Hebrew (Hebrew with fixed vowels) whose manuscripts didn't exist until the high middle ages, approximately the 9th century AD--almost a thousand years after Christ! By then, the methodology behind Jewish biblical scholarship had evolved immensely and the original meaning of certain passages were irrevocably changed. Isaiah 7:14 is the classic casualty of this: Masoretic Hebrew renders "young woman" while Septuagint Greek renders "virgin"--a pretty significant paradigm shift. Ever wonder why the OT books of the Christian Bible are in their current order as opposed to the way the Hebrew Bible orders them? That's right, the Septuagint lists them in order of Law, Histories, Writings, and Prophecy; the NT books are similarly ordered by Gospel, Acts, Epistles, and Revelation. In the end, the Masoretic/Septuagint wars will rage on; but the latter is still the most ancient and reliable source of the OT, it's quoted extensively by the ancient Church Fathers, and it was the de facto source of scripture for Jesus and His Disciples. If you don't already have a Septuagint, it's well worth picking one up, and the OSB version is preferable to the aging Brenton translation and even to the flawed-NRSV-based NETS (if you're a conservative practitioner of your faith, it's really hard to take the NRSV seriously with its literal-but-intentionally-unorthodox renderings of scripture as well as its politically-motivated gender-sterilized language).The case for the NKJV New Testament:Other reviewers have mentioned a distaste for the New King James Version and, as someone who also affirms most of the critical methods of modern NT scholarship, I can certainly empathize. Though the NKJV relies on the Textus Receptus (a Reformation Era-variant of Byzantine text-type manuscripts, compiled by Erasmus) and maintains such renderings in the body of scripture, its footnotes are the most comprehensive of any translation. In fact, all variations from the Majority Text as well as the Nestle-Aland/UBS editions (the "Critical Text" based on Alexandrian text-type manuscripts) are comprehensively documented. The overriding benefit to the selection of the TR is that the NKJV retains the same eloquent, familiar phraseology and literary grace that caused its predecessor to leave such an indelible mark on English language and literature ever after. And because it adheres to the principle of formal equivalence in translation, the NKJV maintains a vocabulary and style in accordance with high English--this is not a "dumbed-down" translation like many other popular ones out there. The result is that the Bible reads less like a contemporary novel or a daily newspaper, and more like dignified prose--which is befitting of sacred scripture.The case for the commentary:If you're strictly an academic, you may find this to have a limited appeal; but if you consider yourself a member of the faithful laity, you'll get quite a lot out of this. Even if you're a Christian of Reformation descent, you'll appreciate the uniqueness in character of the OSB notes because it's the only modern commentary available that doesn't depend on the historical-critical method to elaborate on passages. Instead, it's comprehensively Christological, even in the OT where it succeeds in pointing out both significant and obscure messianic prophecies. The result is an OT commentary that approaches scripture holistically, with the same Christ-centered worldview that is readily present in the NT. If you're an Orthodox Christian, you'll love it more than not, even though the brevity characteristic of its notes contrasts with the immense depth and breadth typical of Church Fathers. In my humble opinion, the commentary's simplicity is its strength for ordinary study or prayerful reading. As someone who occasionally refers to the Haydock edition of the Douay-Rheims Bible to shed light on certain difficult scripture passages, I find the OSB's concise, pointed commentary to be a refreshing change, in contrast to Haydock's excessive wordiness for normal use. Sure, for more in-depth study you'll want a deeper commentary, but the vast majority of the time, and for the vast majority of people, the OSB's solidly patristic explanations are a sight for sore eyes. If you're an Eastern Catholic, this will fit you like a glove since all scripture references cited during Byzantine Divine Liturgy are clearly referenced and the appendix even includes a lectionary for the entire liturgical year. If you're a Roman Rite Catholic, like me, trust me: there's no better modern, complete Bible out there that's made to bolster your faith like this one. To wit: the single-volume Navarre Bible is hopefully in the works and, as of this writing, the NT of the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible is available for pre-order with the OT probably years away. The potential benefits to such future volumes would be references to papal encyclicals, pertinent teachings from the Catechism, and explanations by intellectual giants like Dr. Scott Hahn, Curtis Mitch, or other faithful scripture scholars. The OSB commentary, along with the introductions to each book, purposely limits its scope to the wisdom of the Holy Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils of the first millennium. While this may sound like a detractor at first, it has one substantial benefit: these are the teachings that predate any Reformation, or subsequently needed Counter-Reformation, as well as the Great East-West Schism. Essentially, these are the teachings of Christ's Church when that Church was One: singular and united.Formatting notes:The full biblical text is set in a two-column format and is graced with section headers within the chapters themselves for easier searching. The font is a nicely-readable 11-point for the text and about 8-point for the footnotes and commentary. Overall, the page layout is among the most practical and beautiful I've seen in any Bible. One major upshot to the OSB is the page thinness. In order to pack the wealth of information contained in this veritable library into a single volume, the pages evidently had to become nearly tissue-paper thin. Despite this, text ghosting from the other side is surprisingly minimal--I just worry about dropping this one day and forever creasing a couple hundred pages for its potential lack of resilience. Also, the tome measures about 7x10x2, so it's a bit larger than your average personal Bible. The bonded leather is elegant and sturdy but suffers some minor-but-still-irritating curl after use. The pages are gold-edged and the Bible has that humble and reverent look and feel that they surely ought to have for the sacred scripture they contain. Finally, the full-color, high quality, icons interspersed throughout are a blessing and further aid the sense of actually being "in church" as you read.Other observations of note:The OSB does suffer one logistical drawback shared, for example, by the Douay-Rheims (the traditional Catholic Bible translated from the Clementine Vulgate): the verse numberings occasionally deviate from the standard (which has been set by an OT in Hebrew and a NT in Greek). In the case of the Douay, this is a result of translating from the Latin text. With regard to the OSB, similar verse discrepancies occur only in the Greek-based OT. Outside the Septuagint Psalter, I've found such a phenomenon to be a rare occurrence, at least. The stock NKJV NT obviously follows standard versification.As someone who, admittedly, is accustomed to Masoretic Hebrew renderings in the OT from my NOAB, adjusting to Septuagint ones is an occasionally surprising endeavor, but always a fruitful one. Since the NKJV OT was the base translation for this particular version of the Septuagint, many beloved passages you're used to are nearly identical; Psalm 23 is a good example that remains virtually unchanged. Others, like Proverbs 3:5 are completely different; showing, instead, a much closer relationship to the deuterocanonical book of Wisdom, chapter 8. Such "Easter eggs" are prevalent throughout the text and make having the Septuagint well worth it, even just for comparative study.For all that you're getting, the OSB's price point is just right for both bonded leather and hard-bound. Also, the publisher has more or less recently come out with a red, genuine leather edition that is significantly pricier, but which sports a beautiful and ornate gold cover design.In the end, the Orthodox Study Bible is a God-send (quite literally in many senses). If you're less interested in getting to know the "historical Jesus" as portrayed by scholars in most study Bibles, and more interested in meeting with Our Lord and Savior as understood by saints, "Highly recommended" would be an understatement.Ad majorem Dei gloriam!

I have been Orthodox for about a decade and I just received my own copy of the OSB. Before explaining why I've taken so long to purchase a copy and noting some negatives, let me summarize the positives. Even though I am just starting to seriously go through the OSB and have only compared a fraction of the text to a few (maybe 10) other versions, I can already say that the OSB is the best English translation of the Bible out there. It gets 5/5 stars easily. In the same way that the NKJV preserves and improves upon the simultaneously rigorous and poetic translation of the KJV, the OSB improves many aspects of the NKJV while retaining most of its strengths. It brings back the full canon of Scripture (and in a more traditional order), which is huge—the NKJV only updated part of the KJV and is missing entire books containing key prophecies and histories that are quoted in, fulfilled in, and underly the New Testament. It fixes a lot of issues with the Hebrew texts—the Hebrew texts that most Protestant OTs are based on is a different manuscript tradition than that used and quoted by Christ and the Apostles, something quite apparent to any reader who is familiar with the LXX or older English translations of it (e.g., Brenton's Septuagint). And it finally gives modern English-speaking Christians a good, liturgical-quality translation of the entire Bible that should be acceptable for both home study and public reading. This is *the* version I recommend people for serious use and, if that is what you need, this is the one for you. The TLDR is this: the OSB is the best English-language Bible out there.Having said all of that and without in any way diminishing my glowing recommendation for this amazing work, there are definitely some issues with the OSB that should be addressed in future printings. The first standout is the "study notes"—despite being a faithful Orthodox Christian, the infamy of these notes has kept me away from this excellent translation for years. I used to cringe upon anyone even mentioning the OSB, such were my memories of flipping through and reading them years ago. To put it mildly, the commentary is, in many places, simplistic; as other reviewers have hinted, it is hard to describe just how wastefully crass and conspicuous some of the notes seem. As of this review, I don't even think I can be angry at the notes anymore—if people really need it rehashed again in only slightly more obvious language and according to only the most overt possible reading, fine. Maybe I have just exhausted myself so much worrying and am just numb to them now, but the notes are what they are. Thankfully, there are a lot good things about the commentary—it isn't all bad and is certainly not deserving of all the anxiety I've developed towards it! In all but the most unsubtle of notes, the commentary is actually fairly useful and well-referenced. It isn't really suffused with patristic material and quotations as advertised, but it gets the job done. The commentary really tries to bring out Christ and Trinitarian themes in the OT, something that is usually missed in a non-Christian reading of the text (unfortunately, nearly all moderns—even modern Christians—do not read the text in a Christian way, a problem Fr. John Behr has spoken and written very profoundly on; his talks on scriptural interpretation should be mandatory listening for all modern Christians). Sadly, even in this the notes feel very minimalistic and basic, missing a lot of important references to and prophecies about Christ and frequently pigeonholing rich, complex passages into only one obvious interpretation. For a broad example, while I was pleasantly surprised to see a few of the prophecies in Proverbs explained (I would consider this a more difficult book, as we are not trained to read it prophetically in the post-"Enlightenment" world and thus have a hard time reading it in a Christian manner), the riches in Isaiah (which is pretty obviously a prophecy, even to moderns) feel like they've been barely unearthed. This might still be more "Jesus" than most people are used to seeing in the OT, so that is good, but it doesn't feel like it is deep enough for any Orthodox Christian who is immersed, even weekly, in part of the daily cycle of services and Liturgies and wants to keep going deeper. Obviously, I haven't done a thorough study of every single note in the OSB, but the commentary unfortunately does also have what feels to me to be some modern teaching, either confusingly ambiguous or simply heterodox, in a few places (e.g., the marriage bed in 1 Corinthians seems to be treated as place to express sexual desires, not as a place to *bear children* and *through that* learn the *only* proper place of sexuality and thereby control it, which is the teaching of all fathers East and West), though that seems to be the exception rather than the rule and I don't want to overemphasize the very few seeming mistakes I've come across or scare anyone off. The longer prose sections are fairly basic, but some are useful, like the lectionary (though it is not formatted well), list of the Seventy Apostles, and canon comparison (though Orthodoxy still doesn't have a completely "definitive" canon—as the Church that preceded and wrote the Bible, we never had the need to figure out what to "base" ourselves on, apart from Christ!). Ironically, the morning and evening prayers do not use the OSB's version of the Our Father, which I chuckled at—more signs that this is a work in progress (meaning not just the OSB, but coming closer to a normative and consistent English translation of all the liturgical texts). The intro to Orthodoxy near the beginning of the book was kind of "meh" for me: it is far too focused on issues that were very pertinent to the group of converts from which many of the OSB staff come from. It also latches onto, like the some of the wider study notes I read, very linear and stilted questions of authority, guilt, and other concerns that tend to distort Orthodox teaching. I do not mean to say that they are not giving (or trying to give) Orthodox answers to these questions, only reminding readers that sometimes the question itself is more important than the answer: what we ask can significantly color or distort what we hear and looking through lenses that are used very little (or very differently) in the Fathers but adopted "hook, line, and sinker" by moderns can be very problematic. In that way, this is probably the intro that will be most helpful to moderns and thus I can see why they went with it, but it irks me that I have to read the same rehashing of the same narrow "this is Orthodoxy" oversimplification everywhere. Along those same lines, I still find strange and annoying the continued insistence by members of this group that there were only seven Ecumenical Councils; the patriarchates have said, taught, and put in writing that there are 9—we should be reading about the Nine Ecumenical Councils! Back to the study materials in general, more use of the metaphor of the Church as a hospital or the connection (perhaps even identification) of Pascha and the Final Judgment, for instance, would be welcome, though I think they did a good job of avoiding all the worst pitfalls, especially in the notes to Romans. Again, despite a few specific notes, the commentary is solidly Orthodox; things could be improved here or there as I nitpick, sure, but this is doctrinally sound stuff and I don't want to insinuate otherwise. On a completely different note, I've already caught some spelling and grammar mistakes in the study material, which is further disappointing. Yet overall, none of this is as bad as I had irrationally feared given my limited experiences with this study Bible years ago and shouldn't be a dealbreaker for anybody, as I'll explain a bit more below; it is simply a weak point for the OSB.I also want to make some comments on the translation, which varies way more than I expected from the NKJV in the OT. I am happy with a lot of the corrections (as noted above, the LXX is what Christ and the early Church used and contains many prophecies that are significantly different—if not completely absent—from the Hebrew texts used by modern Judaism and adopted by many Western Christians), but too many of the changes seem to be minor. Too many of them feel like needless deviations from the NKJV (already a beautifully poetic and well-known, widely-used translation) to match the sentence structure of the LXX—even the Brenton sentence structure—when it does little to change the meaning of the verse. In a few spots (again, these are just some initial findings), it even seemed to take a step backwards: Proverbs 8:22/23, to take one quick example, moves away from the NKJV in order to offer a translation more in accord with the RSV/NRSV line, which has been criticized for seemingly Arian renderings of passages in both the Old and New Testaments. For another brief example (one in the KJV but not the NKJV and more a matter of style and/or my preference), the prayer at the beginning of Sirach 36, a hugely important prayer where I am from, feels a bit sloppy—even Brenton's translation, not a particularly singable version, has more rhythm and flow. I am still on the fence about the OSB's rendering of the Psalms, but that may just be habit (and the fact that HTM, in their Psalter According To The Seventy, already has such a good and ubiquitous version that the OSB crew should have—at just about any cost—found a way to use instead of making yet another translation just different enough to throw people off, especially while chanting!). The NT seems to be purely the NKJV, which is generally a good thing. Sure, there are the common issues that the NKJV shares with other versions, like the wildly incorrect rendering of Mark 13:32 that seems to plague *all* English translations (the OSB does have a study note that says St. John Chrysostom interprets the verse quite differently—but it doesn't communicate that it is because he is, in a very real way given the continued mistranslation, talking about a completely different verse) and the very ancient mistranslation about the "camel" going through the eye of a needle (that is wrong in the original Greek, though, so I can't fault anybody recent there!), but it is still a great translation and beat every other English-language version out there even before the OSB came along.The last set of problems with the OSB is the physical design and construction. The build quality of the book is not great: the dust jacket (it feels cheap and gimmicky and gets in the way of using the book), poor font selection, odd font sizings and weightings, minuscule margins, questionable page thickness/transparency, etc.; all of that makes it more difficult to read and work with. While I am coming to appreciate the little study sections (again, basic as they are), they are so jarring just speckled in weird places throughout who-knows-what book. Yes, I know that some of them are put in these places because somebody who is not Orthodox is going to find them when they inevitably search for "certain passages", but there has got to be a better way—maybe put them after the relevant books and provide a less jarring [but still obvious and large, maybe even box-style] notes about them at the passages themselves? Then there are the icon pages. I am very torn about icons in books (pun intended—icons are meant to be used, and not as Orthodox decoration or as something to flip through, tearing up and/or discarding along with a book). And these are particularly poorly executed: a lot of the icons are from strongly-modern-influenced schismatic sources while gobs and gobs of other [and much better] sources are available, the pages are thicker so they mess with physically navigating through the Bible itself, and they are also very jarring. We really don't need full-color icons interspersed though everything we produce to let people know we are Orthodox and we're [still] not iconoclasts. I guess there is the non-Orthodox angle: the icons have a bit of a strategic and evangelistic positioning. Yet something a bit more subtle, like black-and-white line drawings and reliefs, would still convey a lot without crossing as many lines and blurring, if not undermining, the very meaning and use of the iconography they're trying to safeguard. Though this kind of pulls some of my earlier criticisms back into play, I guess what I would really like is the option to buy a version of the OSB without the "S" (the study part): a solidly built, heirloom-quality Bible with cleaner, nicer text that I can comfortably use in either a home or liturgical setting without covering the text with my fingers as I hold it (1 in margins, please!), ripping the pages, being interrupted mid-sentence by a "helpful" study page when I turn to finish a verse, etc.—but that is just a dream for now!Having gotten through my main issues with the OSB, I want to reiterate that this is still the best English translation I have found overall, both in terms of faithfulness to the text and usability/clarity in modern English, in my years of study. (I did go to school for theology but am not any kind of textual expert or professional academic, so take what you will from what I've said.) I have all these criticisms and want to take the time to point just a few examples of them out not because this is an awful Bible, but because it is such a *good* one and will likely be part of something huge: a consistent liturgical translation of our readings and prayers into English. It is because that project will have such lasting impact—and consequences—that I want to contribute my little offering to, by The Grace Of God, keep it faithful to the traditions that have been handed down to us (2 Thessalonians 2:15). No, the OSB isn't perfect. And actually, in some ways, I don't want it to change any more and have yet another version floating around, but I also realize that there needs to be some change in the OSB—both in the notes, the translation, and the construction. But in any case, this is, even as it currently exists, a great addition to my library and will be my go-to translation from here on out, with the NKJV as a second (though it lacks the full canon). Despite its present shortcomings, it is still something I would strongly recommend to anyone who is a Christian or who is looking into Christianity. Get over the silliest of the notes and the first-run design and you will find the best English translation available with very helpful commentary that isn't full of all the PSA (penal substitutionary atonement) nonsense, antitraditionalism, and doctrinal innovation that just drips from modernistic versions of Christianity. Buy it ASAP!