A member asked me for help on a "Biblical Trivia Quiz" for a Valentine's Dinner. She wanted questions in particular about husbands, wives and family. It was pretty fun to do. I can't post it yet, as there will be prizes for answers on the Sunday dinner...but after then, I'll provide a link or something.
Here's a brief introduction to these books of the Bible by Rev. Paul McCain:
In the past several decades, there has been a resurgence of interest in the so-called "missing books" of the Bible. The work of persons such as Elaine Pagels has made a career of trying to popularize the Gnostic Gospels and other Gnostic literature. The most dramatic discovery of Gnostic texts occurred in the upper Egyptian city of Nag Hammadi. The Gospel of Thomas was found as a complete text. These Gnostic texts are often referred to in populist works and the major media as the "missing books of the Bible." Actually, nothing could be further from the truth. They were never regarded as being part of Christian Scripture. Gnosticism, in its variety of forms, was a mixture of pagan philosophy and Christian stories.A whole cottage industry has developed around these "missing books," pumping out volumes of misleading books and information, leading people to believe that somehow there has been a grand conspiracy to cover up and hide the "real facts" about Christ and Christianity. All one has to do to quickly demonstrate the difference between canonical Scripture and these false Gnostic Gospels is read them. Frankly, the Gnostic Gospels sound like something produced by a person writing under the influence of LSD or other such hallucinogens. So, set the Gnostic literature aside and let's talk about some books that have always been in our Bibles, until the Lutheran Church moved into the English language.
There are, in fact, "missing books" of Scripture: the Apocrypha. For too many years Lutherans, like Protestant denominations everywhere, have thought that these books are only part of the "Roman Catholic Bible." Let's sort out the facts here, and conclude these brief remarks with an excellent introduction to the Apocryphal books by Pastor Richard Sawyer, which I'll provide below.
But let's first talk about how, when and why the Apocryphal books became relatively unknown to English speaking Lutherans. When the first complete edition of the Bible by the Wittenberg Reformers was published, in 1534, Luther and his colleagues included the Apocryphal books, though distinguished from the more universally accepted books, by setting them apart in their own appendix to the Old Testament. Luther's Bible was the first major edition to have a separate section called Apocrypha. Books and portions of books not found in the Hebrew Old Testament were moved out of the body of the Old Testament to this section. The books of 1 and 2 Esdras were omitted entirely. Luther placed these books between the. For this reason, these works are sometimes known as inter-testamental books. The point is that Apocryphal books were never rejected by orthodox Lutherans, but always included in every edition of the Luther Bible and in many German editions of the Bible as well, for instance all German Bibles published by Concordia Publishing House as long as German bibles were publishedl. The Roman Catholic, at the Council of Trent, did something never before done in the history of the church: it put the Apocryphal books on the same level of authority as the rest of the books of the Bible. Why? Because it is in the Apocryphal books that Rome claims to find justification for several of its false doctrines: chiefly, the doctrine of purgatory. But this fact never dissuaded Lutheran Christians from using these books or including them in their Bibles.
In the early years of the 20th century, as Lutherans in the USA began replacing German with English in their churches, and in their Bible translations, the Apocryphal books simply went missing, indeed "missing in action" is pretty much what happened to them. In recent years, interest is increasing in these books, as Lutherans look to reclaim more of their heritage. There is no reason to allow Rome to claim these books as their own, for indeed, they are not the sole possession of Rome, or Eastern Orthodoxy. It will take a lot of careful pastoral instruction to help the members of English speaking Lutheran congregations distinguish the Apocryphal books from the Gnostic non-Biblical books, and to help explain what the Apocryphal books are, and what their traditional place in the Bible has always been in the Lutheran Church. For that matter, the Apocryphal books are featured throughout Western European culture. Perhaps the best way to help Lutherans who are unfamiliar with these books understand their place in the Lutheran Church's own culture and hymnody is to point them to a well-known hymn from the age of Lutheran Orthodoxy: Now Thank We All Our God, written by Martin Rinkart circa 1636 when the devastating Thirty Years War was nearing its end. It depends very much on Luther’s translation of the Apocryphal book of Sirach, Chapter 50.
(from Cyberbrethren)
Back in December I discussed the (then) forthcoming The Orthodox Study Bible
Presentation
First things first, it smelled nice. (I'm an enthusiastic book-smeller) I'm also in favor of leather bindings, as they tend to wear better, and I side with the woman with the alabaster flask (Mar. 14:3) when it comes to Holy things. I was impressed with its thickness; it's not nearly as thick as some study Bibles are. But the pages seem very thin, and are a little more translucent than I prefer. I worried that it would be hard to read with the text bleeding-through, but after using it this morning I didn't notice it at all. I still am concerned that the pages may tear, especially if I am flipping pages while teaching. The Bible features some nice color plates of icons interspersed throughout the text. The icons vary a bit in style, being written by different hands and that variation is good.
Study Content
The study helps are excellent for the most part. The introduction provides a short explanation of the text used for the Old Testament and the philosophy behind what kinds of notes and study aids were provided. The purpose of the Study Bible is given too: "The prayer of the editors and contributors...is that is presents an understandable Bible text and commentary to (1) English-speaking Orthodox Christians the world over and to (2) non-Orthodox readers interested in learning more about the faith of the historic Orthodox Church." Following that is handy chart showing the listings of the books of the Bible in both this edition, Roman Catholic Bibles and Protestant Bibles.
An "Overview of Books of the Bible" follows--brief summaries of the books of the Bible. The author of this essay, Bishop BASIL of Wichita and the Mid-America, takes special care throughout to relate the summaries to Christ. "Introducing the Orthodox Church" follows this, a crash-course in Christian History that could be very helpful to many readers. One should be aware that this section is written in a persuasive style, attempting to convince the reader that the Orthodox Church alone has preserved the apostolic doctrine. Fair enough, given the purpose and prayer of the editors. I do think it goes too far at the conclusion, inviting readers of the Study Bible to attend Orthodox worship. At this point the essay feels more like a Gospel-tract, if you know what I mean.
Throughout the text the Bible includes mini-essays on doctrinal topics with generous quotations from Scripture and Church Fathers. In my limited reading so far, it doesn't seem to include as many quotes from the Fathers as I had hoped, but the notes provided seem quite good so far. One outstanding feature is that every Biblical text used in Orthodox liturgies throughout the church year are noted with a special symbol. The notes below the text tell the reader at what service they are read. The effect this has is to affirm just how much Scripture is used in the Eastern Rite liturgy. It's staggering. I wonder if the forthcoming Lutheran study Bible would benefit from doing this. I also wonder if Lutherans could boast of so much Scripture used!
After Revelation the Study Bible includes two essays, the first entitled "The Bible:God's Revelation to Man," written by Bishop JOSEPH, Bishop of Los Angeles and the West; the second, "How to Read the Bible," by Bishop KALLISTOS, Bishop of Diokleia. I've only read the latter so far and found it delightful. I don't recall any liturgical Christian who would object to this essay. Following that is a Lectionary, arranged roughly according to the Eastern Rite Orthodox liturgical year, an Eastern Rite order for Morning and Evening Prayer, a glossary, index, and the obligatory maps.
The Translation
As I discussed last year, one of the great benefits to this Study Bible is that the text of the Greek (Septuagint) Old Testament. So what is it like reading this? I'm not sure at this point, having only read a few short chapters. So far its hard to tell what differs due to translation and what differs due to a different original text. The language is easy to read, the print is good, the notes are helpful, but in some ways it's almost like seeing your house through a mirror; everything looks familiar, but things seem somehow different. After a few months I may be able to share more.
Who Should Have it?
1. Anyone interested in a readable English translation of the Greek OT, used by Christ and the Apostles and generations of Christians since (all the reasons I blogged about before).
2. Those who don't mind receiving some excellent insight and information about Orthodoxy (even at Concordia Seminary we learned vast amounts about Roman Catholicism and other Protestants; the Orthodox Church was virtually ignored!).
3. Those who are using a Protestant Study Bible (such as the Zonervan, Thompson, Life Application, MacArthur, etc) The Orthodox Study Bible is to be greatly preferred, as it shares a similar liturgical, sacramental, Christ-centered reading and understanding of Scripture as Lutherans.
Thomas Nelson is preparing to release the The Orthodox Study Bible: Ancient Christianity Speaks to Today's World
Why would I recommend purchasing such a "denominationally-specific" study Bible that is not Lutheran? Because of the unprecedented translation, which is based on the New King James Version (a highly readable version, by the way).
Prior to this publication every English Bible has been produced using the Hebrew Masoretic Text and a hodge-podge of Greek text traditions for the New Testament. The Orthodox Study Bible is different, using the Septuagint for the Old Testament text and the Byzantine Text for the New Testament.
Why is this good? To answer this question, we need to know a little bit about the history of the text of the Old Testament.
The original manuscripts of the books of the OT from the hands of the prophets were most likely written in various forms of ancient Hebrew. These were copied over the centuries and no doubt updated at various times to reflect the changing grammar, syntax, and vocabulary of Hebrew. In the 3rd Century BC, the Greek-speaking King of Egypt Ptolmey II Philadelphus asked Jewish scholars to make a translation of their holy texts into Greek for the Library of Alexandria. Legend has it that 72 scholars gathered and independently translated the books. Upon completion they compared their translations and found that they agreed word for word. This was seen as a sign of divine inspiration of the translation. This version has since been referred to as the Septuagint ("70" in Greek) or LXX. Modern scholars dispute this story, noting great differences in translation style, some being nearly word-for-word, others being paraphrases of Hebrew texts, pointing to different translators with different theories of translation over time. But the fact remains that many Jews believed the LXX was the inspired version of the Old Testament texts, and it was used widely, especially in the Jewish diaspora (those Jews who lived outside of Judea).
This usage continued until the beginnings of the Christian Church. Many of the OT quotations in the New Testament are based on readings from the LXX. Modern readers note this when looking up the quoted passage in their English Bibles and realizing that something is wrong. It often appears that the NT writer was misquoting the text, or paraphrasing it, when in fact he was quoting directly from the OT LXX.
There began to be growing tension between Jews and Christians centered around the LXX, however, for many passages in the LXX are more explicitly Christological than some Hebrew versions at the time read. One example is Psalm 40:6. In the Masoretic text it reads, "Sacrifice and offering you have not desired, but you have given me an open ear. Burnt offering and sin offering you have not required. (ESV)" But in the LXX it says, "Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not; but a body hast thou prepared me: whole-burnt-offering and sacrifice for sin thou didst not require." 1st Century Christians held this to be a reference to the body of Christ whom God prepared for our salvation.
By 70 AD, Rabbis were beginning to push for abandoning the LXX and returning to Hebrew versions. They claimed that Christians had deliberately changed the text of the LXX to bolster their claims about Jesus (which is completely absurd, given the numbers of Christians and the numbers of manuscripts scattered throughout the world). But by the early 2nd Century, Jews began to collect old Hebrew versions and eventually settled on a text tradition. What is remarkable about this text is that, like all early Hebrew, it contained no vowels. Rabbis were left to interpret the meaning of the words based only on the consonants. The complicating factor is that all Hebrew verbs are based on a three-letter root, and many nouns as well. One three-letter combination could be any number of words, based on what vowels were added by the reader.
But sometime in between the 7th and 10th Centuries, a group of Jews known as the Masoretes began producing a version of the OT which included "vowel-pointing," small marks under and over the letters to indicate what vowels to pronounce, and thereby the meaning of the word. Christians sometimes wonder how much was deliberately translated to avoid hints of Christian theology during this time period. But this is the text of the OT that is used for every English translation of the Bible--sometimes with reference and comparison with the LXX, but not always. Isaiah 7:14 is one of the few passages that English translators have used the LXX version instead of the Masoretic. The Greek LXX uses the word for "virgin," while the Masoretic text uses a generic word, almah, meaning "young woman." Matthew 1:23 quotes from the LXX, and so most English translations use this reading in Isaiah as well. In other passages, though, the Hebrew Masoretic text is unintelligible, and so translators appeal to the LXX to amplify the meaning. This is often noted in the margins of English Bibles.
Thus the Masoretic text does have some deficiencies, being a late version of the Hebrew Bible (the oldest copy dates to the 10th Century AD). It is also problematic in dozens of places where the older Greek OT seems to include Messianic predictions and anticipation of Christian theology, but it does not. In the interest of fairness, however, since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, scholars have noted that the Masoretic text is virtually identical to some Hebrew versions circulating in the 1st Century BC.
So we can ask the question, "Why do Christians read a version of the Hebrew text that was used by Jews purposely intent on rejecting Messianic predictions when a previous version of the texts, once affirmed as inspired by Jews exists? One even quoted by Jesus and the Apostles in the NT?" Good question. I believe the answer lies with Humanism, but I do not have space to delve into that.
The Orthodox Church has always used the Septuagint. They were using it when the Apostles preached and never stopped. Previous to the Orthodox Study Bible, the last English translation of the Septuagint produced was in 1850 (the Brenton translation). It's a difficult read. This new translation is based on the New King James Version. What this means is that as the translators worked, they compared their translation with the NKJV. Where they held the same meaning, the NKJV was retained. Where the LXX differed, the translators edited the text of the NKJV to reflect the LXX's reading.
Finally, someone may object to the notes and study helps of the Orthodox Study Bible, wondering if people will get false doctrine from those notes. Why not buy an edition which uses the LXX but doesn't have the Orthodox perspective in the notes? It would be nice for those in other church bodies, but so far Thomas Nelson (whose CEO is a Deacon in the Orthodox Church BTW) has not indicated they will be publishing any other version.
Let us consider this. The so-called "Concordia Self-Study Bible," putatively a Lutheran study Bible, is a lightly edited version of the Zondervan Study Bible, which is thoroughly Evangelical. The changes between the two are hard to spot, and I don't always agree with how the Zondervan editors nor the CPH editors interpret passages. Isn't that arrogant of me? Probably. But I don't think the Lutheran editors of the Zondervan Study Bible are always true to Lutheranism, nor the best interpretation of certain texts. At best, the Self-Study Bible is a minimal Lutheranization of an Evangelical study Bible.
Second, members of my congregation regularly read study Bibles that are un-Lutheran, like the Ryrie, the Scofield, the Zondervan, and various others of greater or lesser charismatic stripe. If people are going to use a study Bible, it makes sense to use a study Bible that is at least sacramental. The Orthodox Study Bible has the further advantage of giving us quotations from the Church Fathers, so we get to learn how early Christians interpreted various texts and not just modern scholars. Yes, I imagine there are will be some particular Orthodox positions. I've read reviews of the Orthodox Study Bible that claim it was edited for Evangelicals and Protestants who have, or are converting to Orthodoxy, and thus is tailored to answer their questions. I don't know about this one, as I've not seen a published copy yet.
But even for those who are rabidly anti-Orthodox (you know who you are), I still would recommend this edition, at least for the sake of the translation. You might even learn something from the notes too. ;)
