Excerpt from a letter concerning the “Orthodox Study Bible”:
Dear Silas,
....
In several places, they specifically espouse ecumenical ideas, e.g. the idea that the Orthodox Church is not the sole bearer of the truth and the idea that salvation is available outside the true Church in all the so-called Christian denominations. On page 606, in the footnote to Revelation 7:9, the footnote tells us that the white-robed multitude saved in addition to the 144,000 (which number is defined by them as the fullness of the Old and New Testament Church) are “the righteous from all nations who were not members of the “12 X 12 X 1000,” Old Covenant Israel and the Church. These pass victoriously through the great tribulation to inherit the Kingdom of God.” In the footnote to Mark 9:38-40, concerning how we ought to regard non-Orthodox groups, they write that “Sectarianism and triumphalism (the attitude that one creed is superior to all others) are forbidden, for God’s working transcends our limited perceptions. One is either for or against (v.40) Christ, but it is not always ours to know who is on which side.” Lastly, in the appendix called “Introducing the Orthodox Church”, the authors of this article state that although there have been problems in the past with the Monophysites of Syria, Armenia, and Egypt (they are heretics!), “There is encouraging news, however, for the churches which left after the Council [of Chalcedon] have worked out an agreement with the Orthodox Church, satisfying Orthodox theologians of their doctrinal correctness. Consequently, a break of some 1500 years is on the verge of being healed.” This is very deceptive in as much as the Monophysites have not repented of anything and the ‘Orthodox’ of ‘World Orthodoxy’ have simply adopted a compromise theology that is blatant Monotheletism (condemned at the 6th Ecumenical Council as just another form of Monophysitism) at the very least if not outright Monophysitism. Indeed, in 1990, all of ‘World Orthodoxy’ in an Agreed Statement at Chambessy, Switzerland, declared null and void the anathematizations of Monophysitism and its leaders made by the Holy Fathers of the 4th through the 7th Ecumenical Councils and declared that the Monophysites were never heretics. Since 1992, ‘World Orthodoxy’ has officially been in communion and concelebrating with Monophysites, and circulated directives to their clergy sanctioning these concelebrations with the proviso that the concelebrations should not be held where there are still groups of the laity that might be scandalized. So what we have here is a ‘Orthodox Study Bible’ that teaches that (1) Orthodoxy is not the one and only Truth nor even any better than any other creed, but rather She is one of many equally good creeds; (2) one does not need to be Orthodox to be saved; and (3) the Holy Fathers erred in condemning Monophysitism, which is apparently not a heresy. In short, the OSB is an Ecumenist ‘Study Bible’ and not an Orthodox one.
Also they demonstrate their modernism in footnotes like that to 1 Timothy 2:2, which claims that women were deacons in the Orthodox Church in Apostolic times, and implies that they could be ordained to the diaconate today as well [Ed. Note – they have already made women readers, e.g. Bp. Anthony of the Greek Archdiocese ordained Eve Tibbs not long ago out in California, and they are now, through their false ‘research’, preparing the way for female ‘deacons’]. Neither case is true. But by saying “Some women...serve as deacons (Rom. 16:1)”, the authors certainly put this innovation forward as Orthodox. “Diakonon” means “servant” as it is translated even by the NKJV translators in the verse (Rom. 16:1) referred to by the OSB commentators, and unless the context and the Fathers make it clear that the word ought to be read as “Deacon”, then we ought not to read the Greek this way. St. Paul, writing to Timothy, concerning the ordination to the diaconate and the episcopate makes it clear that he is speaking of offices here (“Faithful is the word. If one reach out for the office of bishop, he is desirous of a good work” [1 Tim. 3:1]... It is necessary for deacons, in like manner, to be...[1 Tim. 3:8]). Furthermore, can you imagine the nonsense that would be read supposedly as Holy Scripture if we translated (as the OSB commentators do) “diakonon” as “Deacon” every time it appeared? Here are few examples:
“Behold, My Deacon Whom I chose, My Beloved, in Whom My soul is well pleased; I will put My Spirit upon Him, and He shall declare judgment to the nations” [Mt. 12:18].
Was Christ the deacon of God the Father? Was the Father then a bishop?
“But it shall not be so among you. But whosoever doth wish to become great among you shall be your deacon” [Mt. 20:26].
According to this translation, I must ordain as a deacon anyone who wants to be great among us. Boy would we have problems if this were correct!
54“He helped His deacon Israel, in remembrance of His mercy...” [Lk. 1:54].
Did God ordain the nation of Israel his collective deacon?
As you can see, trying to say that St. Phoebe served as a deacon in the Church at Cenchrea based solely on the appearance of the word “diakonon” in that verse (...Phoebe, our sister, a servant of the Church of Cenchrea...[NKJV]) will lead to numberless absurdities.
“The Orthodox New Testament” has the acceptable rendering that she was a “deaconess” which is a separate office in no wise equivalent to that of a deacon. This office, which involved giving minor help to the priest in anointing other women’s bodies in the baptismal-chrismation service (to avoid rumors among the pagans of improprieties in Christian services) and in keeping the women of large congregations in line during the services, since late antiquity has no longer been of any real use to the Church and has ceased to exist in actuality. In evidence of the fact that a deaconess is not equivalent to a deacon, we see that the Apostles in their Constitutions (Bk. VIII, paragraph 27), speaking of deaconesses, make it clear that “A deaconess does not bless, nor perform anything belonging to the office of presbyters or deacons, but only is to keep the doors, and to minister to the presbyters in the baptizing of women, on account of decency... It is not lawful for a sub-deacon to separate either one of the clergy or laity; nor for a reader, nor for a singer, nor for a deaconess, for they are the ministers to the deacons.” Although the deaconess did have a role to play when necessary in the ancient Orthodox Church, she was ranked below even the readers and chanters, who are tonsured into their position, not even ordained, and the canons of the Church make clear that the deaconess is not ‘ordained’. I say this not to denigrate the valuable service that these ancient deaconesses performed for the Church, but simply to give an accurate and Orthodox description of their position in the Church. So, for the commentators of the OSB to claim that “women...served as deacons (Rom. 16:1)” in ancient times serves, not just to show us their lack of honesty and competency as translators, but also their ‘need’ to follow the fashions of the world rather than conform to what has actually been handed down from the Apostles and Fathers.
Connected to this innovation in regard to the diaconate are their erroneous comments on the episcopate. The bishop in the ancient Church is said to be originally only “an elder” and “Later in the first century, bishop came to designate a presiding elder” (footnote to 1 Tim. 3:1; p. 489). A Protestant might have written these words in as much as all their leaders (male and female) are called ‘elders’, democratically-elected representatives of a congregation. This seems also to be the case with the OSB commentators since they speak of “elders or presbyters” (p. 787) and say of ‘bishop’ and ‘presbyter’: “These terms are used interchangeably in the New Testament...a bishop being the presiding elder in a local church. After the Apostles deaths, however, the offices of bishop and presbyter became distinct...The authority of the bishop, presbyter, and deacon was not anciently understood as being apart from the people but always from among the people...[the laity] were also called to give their agreement to the direction of the leaders of the Church. On a number of occasions in history, that “Amen” was not forthcoming, and the bishops of the Church took note and changed course” (pp.787-788). A truly Orthodox bishop is far more than simply ‘a presiding elder’ or even ‘presiding presbyter or priest’ whose authority was dependent upon popular lay consent and support. Read the Epistles of St. Ignatius of Antioch, disciple of St. John the Theologian and successor to St. Peter, in this regard. On the other hand, of course, a heretical bishop has no authority whatsoever.
The OSB commentators also seem to argue for a married episcopate: “Today, married men may be ordained to the Orthodox priesthood. The Sixth Ecumenical Council (A.D. 681) sanctioned celibacy for bishops, but only as a special dispensation” (footnote to 1 Tim. 3:2; p. 489) The picture one gets from this footnote is that a celibate bishop is a deviation from the Church’s norm that had to be specially sanctioned and made allowable at the 6th Ecumenical Council. Other wrong ideas in regard to the episcopate put forth by these commentators could be discussed as well (e.g. that in Apostolic times multiple bishops were ordained at the same altar on the same day).
Thirdly, there is a certain lack of reverence evident throughout their articles and commentaries. For instance, the commentators, in discussing Matthew 14:14-21 and the feeding of the five thousand, somewhat grudgingly say that the feeding of the four thousand (reported in Matthew 15:32-39) “...is PROBABLY not a duplicate report of the first miracle.” The Lord Himself considers them separate events (as He says in Matthew 16:9-10), and the OSB commentators have the audacity to even question this? This same shamelessness is evident in that when the Lord promises that those who give up family and possessions for His sake will receive them back a hundredfold (in Mark 10:30), the commentators call this into question, saying that this is “not an absolute promise: countless saints and martyrs were not so rewarded.” Not only is their viewpoint carnal, but they openly disagree with the Lord and question His faithfulness or power in regard to fulfilling His promises. Apparently these irreverent men, if they read the Fathers, did not find acceptable the Patristic explanation that Christ promises us spiritual brothers, sisters, fathers, and mothers, and the Heavenly Kingdom, in exchange for our earthly ones. This irreverence is perhaps indicated already in that the commentators usually refer to our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ as simply “Jesus” (as if the Lord were some ordinary man, a ‘Frank’ or a ‘Joe’) and the All-holy, Ever-Virgin, Theotokos Mary, the mediator of our salvation and great intercessor for Christians, as simply “Mary”. Perhaps one could argue that I am being overly-critical on this point if the commentators did not so clearly demonstrate their willingness to contradict and question the veracity of the Lord’s words, as if the words of God are questionable or Christ were not God.
Fourthly, there are the repeated inaccuracies in footnotes concerning the Biblical text. There is no way that I could name them all, but here are just a few examples. On page 200, the footnote to Luke 23:44 states “Jesus the Lamb of God died on the Cross at the sixth hour, noon...” whereas, both the hymns of the Church and the text of Luke’s Gospel that they are commenting on tell us He gave up His spirit at the ninth hour. The very OSB text itself reads: “Now it was about the sixth hour and there was darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour. Then the sun was darkened and the veil of the Temple was torn in two. And when Jesus had cried out with a loud voice, He said, ‘Father into Your hands I commit My spirit.’ Having said this, He breathed His last.” Plainly the events happened at the ninth hour, but the obtuse commentators affirm in bold “the sixth hour”. Here is an example from the Psalter. (Incidentally, the Orthodox use the Septuagint Psalter and not the later de-Christianized and mutilated version of the Medieval Jewish Rabbis, the so-called Masoretic text. Yet this is the version, not the Septuagint, included in the OSB). In a footnote to their Masoretic Psalter, we are told that the LXX has ‘Lift up your gates, O Priests’ at Psalm 23.7. So far as I am aware it has ‘you rulers’, in Greek archontes, and I know of no variant reading. Other examples of inaccuracies could be mentioned.
One might also speak about the lack of Patristic explanations in the footnotes, being replaced usually by pointless reiterations of what was said or done in the text, if not actual misinterpretations of it. One such misinterpretation appears in the footnote to St. Mark’s account of the Transfiguration. Although all the Fathers say that the cloud of light coming down on the Mount of the Transfiguration symbolizes the Holy Spirit and His witness to the Son of God, while the voice of the Father shows His witness to the Son, the OSB commentators write in the footnote to Mark 9:7 that “A cloud is sometimes the sign of a theophany, the presence of God the Father.” In general, the OSB fails to give anything but the blandest or vaguely Orthodox remarks on the texts studied. And when I compare it to the “Orthodox New Testament” (which I will speak about later), the endnotes to which are 99% Patristic commentary on the various meanings of different passages, it is as if the Orthodox Study Bible were simple a NKJV Bible without any notes or comments whatsoever.
Fifthly, in regard to the Orthodox Liturgical cycle and the Fasts of the Church there are numerous errors. Here are a few examples. The note on Acts 3:1 refers to “Advent,” which is a term and period which does not exist in Orthodoxy. In the Western liturgical churches (Roman Catholic, Anglican, and Lutheran) “Advent” is the name given to the four Sundays preceding Western Christmas. Orthodoxy does not observe these Sundays, but it does have a six-week fast preceding the feast of the Nativity of Our Lord. Also, the note on “fasting” in the glossary (p. 798) mis-defines the Apostles Fast, incorrectly saying that it is the two weeks before June 29. This fast is actually of variable length, starting on the Monday after All Saints Sunday and continuing until the Feast of Sts. Peter and Paul. The fact that the author of the notes does not know how long the fast lasts can only raise doubts about the extent to which the Faith is being lived, or if the man is even Orthodox. We are further informed in the OSB that the 4th Sunday after Pentecost is the Sunday of the Holy Fathers of the First Six Ecumenical Councils and that it occurs between the 13th and 19th of July, when in most years it does not. The references given are indeed the ones for the 4th Sunday after Pentecost; they are not those for the Fathers. The same remarks apply to the Sunday of the Fathers of the Seventh Council in October.
Also, we must unhappily note the wholly un-Orthodox inverted Arianism of the typography whereby the words of Christ are printed in red, while His heavenly Father has to be content with mere black along with Caiaphas and Pontius Pilate. See for instance the accounts of the Baptism of Christ. The thinking behind the difference in color is apparently that God’s words are more important than mere men’s words and ought to be differentiated in some way. Yet God the Father’s words are black. Are not the Father’s words those of God as well as those spoken by Christ? Also, are not God’s actions important too? Everything in the Gospel is important. Why take away from the importance of Christ’s actions and the situations surrounding them by isolating just His words in red? To color some parts of the text has no basis in the Orthodox tradition.
Another fact is that the OSB refers to Augustine as ‘St. Augustine’. The Evangelical convert authors are taking too much liberty here in declaring him a saint. The most some people in the Orthodox Church have done is to call him ‘blessed’ (wrongly). Truly Orthodox Christians, who have studied the works of Augustine, do not look upon Augustine, the Father of all Western heresies, including ecumenism, as a saint. Because they derive almost every single one of their heresies from Augustine, the Lutherans, Calvinists, Roman Catholics, etc. all adore Augustine as by comparison the only true Church Father. For example Luther wrote: “When Augustine is eliminated from the list of the Fathers, the others are not worth much.” [On the Councils of the Church, Luther’s Works, Vol. 41, p. 27.]
And here are my last two remarks. First, the “Morning and Evening Prayers”, although containing some traditional material, lack any reference to the Mother of God or to one’s Patron Saint, persons who are always addressed or mentioned by Orthodox Christians in their prayers. It seems somewhat Protestant to totally delete the Theotokos and the Saints from one’s daily prayers. Secondly, the maps in the back, although containing much useful material on the Old Testament, are deficient in regard to New Testament sites. For instance, the true sites of Golgotha and the Tomb of Christ, manifested to St. Helen and the Orthodox by various miracles of Christ and venerated since at least the fourth century by countless thousands of Orthodox believers, are marked with question marks to leave open the possibility, also on the map with question marks, that the Protestant General Gordon’s improbable ‘Garden Tomb’ was the real site of both of these holy places. This is blasphemous. Are we to believe that the Son of God made a mistake and revealed the wrong sites to the faithful, while a Protestant researcher has discovered them?
When the publisher contacted me and asked me if they could use some of my icons, I gave them my permission. Of course, they did not show me the text. They just told me that it was going to be a study Bible. That sounded good to me. You are right. The clergy who are involved with and recommend this ‘Orthodox’ Study Bible would not be praying with me at the same altar. If you really wish to study the Bible in an Orthodox fashion, then you must purchase the proper Orthodox texts. That has now been available in English for a few years, and it is called the Orthodox New Testament. This is the first time that the Greek Scriptures were translated by true Greek Orthodox people within the true Church into English. It took eight years to accomplish this, but everyone who purchases the Orthodox New Testament really has no use for the ‘Study Bible’ anymore.
...
In Christ,
+Bishop Gregory
Archbishop Gregory P.O. Box 3177 Buena Vista, CO 81211-3177 USA Email: ArchbishopGregory@starband.net
Copyright 2005.
