A rather tired, nit-picky and ill-founded criticism (as opposed to critique) of the OSB. This hatchet job should have gone out of print long ago.
I apologize, I thought you were making fun of the OSB (Which I strongly dislike).
The canon? It has all the books that the Greeks, Slavs, Armenians, Syriac, Ethiopians etc. have in common.
If there was a universal Eastern Orthodox Biblical Canon...I wonder which books would make the cut?the one in the Orthodox Study Bible.
It's pretty bad.
That means that Maccabbees IV got left out. I wish it was appended, as it is in the Greek canon, as I am very fond of it.
May I ask what you have against the OSB?
See here: http://orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/review_osb.aspx
So what is your Bible of choice?
In English? Usually the old Revised Standard. The Oxford Annotated has all the books, including Maccabbees IV.
And you think the OSB is acceptable?
Acceptable enough, in particular now that OT and NT has come out.
Btw, this is another hatchet job, er, review, of the OSB which shoul also fall by the wayside, valid points drowned out by patronizing and at points down right arrogant quibbles.http://orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/review_osb2.aspx
Just to give an example of what I'm talking about: the review you posted states
The Johannine comma, I John 5:7b-8a, is printed as part of the text, though it occurs in no Greek ms. before the fourteenth century and, for the Fathers at least, it is not part of the Orthodox Bible.
after drawing the line
First of all let us look at the translation used. This is not an Orthodox one at all. The editors have taken the New King James Version, which is a slightly modernised ('You' not 'Thou') re-edition of the version of 1611. They defend this on the grounds that the underlying Greek text of the New Testament in the King James version is closer to the traditional Byzantine text than that of modern critical editions. This is for the most part true and all that they needed to say was that the Byzantine text is the text accepted by the Orthodox Church...Instead they defend their decision on supposedly scholarly grounds. This is irrelevant, except for conservative Evangelicals who wish to justify their conservatism by trying to make it 'scientifically' respectable. It also obscures the central point that for the Orthodox the Bible comes from the Church, exists in the Church, lives in the Church. The section of the opening chapter, pages x and xi, which discusses the choice of text, is in fact nothing more than a slightly revised version of the preface to the Revised Authorised Version, pages vi and vii. In adopting this approach the editors allow themselves to be drawn onto the ground chosen by their opponents, when they should have taken their stand on the Orthodox ground that the Church's text is the Orthodox text, full stop.
Well, the Orthodox text used by the Orthodox Churches of Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Cyprus and the Church of Greece (the Autorized Patriarchal Text of 1904), the Church Slavonic Bible of the Churches of Russia, Serbia, Bulgaria, the Czech Land and Slovakia and Poland, and the Russian and Romanian Synodal Bibles of the Churches of Russia and Romania all have the Johannine comma (the Arabic of the Churches of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem have it too, but the translation was sponsered by Protestants). The Archmandrite seems oblivious to that fact.
Now one can still argue that "for the Fathers at least, it is not part of the Orthodox Bible," but one will have to address the complaint to the cradles of the Mother Churches, and stop blaming the converts.