Sorry to be so slow to respond to your question. I’ve been weighing my thoughts on this carefully. I haven’t found any major gaffes, so to speak, and the overall flow and use of the English language seems acceptable.

Though I do worry about the perception the OT may give to people – the lack of any textual notes can suggest that the text dropped like a pie from the sky and there it is as a coherent whole – when, in fact, we know that the text of the OT, and the LXX in particular, is quite difficult. From Patristics we can see that many in the early Church knew of these various textual traditions, and they were usually more than happy to use and interpret any and all variations. Moreover, in some places the MT reading really is just better, sometimes the LXX misses things, which then messes up the flow of the narrative or the connection of the narrative to another narrative. We can call the LXX the “Church’s Bible” yes, but in the 21st century the “Church’s Bible” needs to be something other than slavish textual supremacy. Our allegiance to the LXX can not mean a complete dismissal of the MT (and other textual types). I have noticed overall in the OSB a rather intentional prejudice towards the Majority Text, one which seems awfully similar to the arguments made by KJV-only groups, except with the OSB the Majority LXX gets substituted. I find this all very bewildering, because if there was one thing the early Church understood was that textual variation was a-okay. The OSB seems to me to, once again, be overlaying modern Protestant conceptions on top of the views of early Christianity.

YES! And YES also for your notes.

what do you think of the actual translation of the Old Testament by the St. Athanasius Academy? What of the New King James of the New Testament? Would you like to see different translations as well?

Blessings,

Lance