"Samson" with a "p", indeed
Sampson is the Greek spelling. True, it's an inconsistency, but it is still a valid alternate spelling.
Errors--my book has the "Sampson" spelling, but none of the other mistakes anyone else mentioned. Strange. I have noticed that the cross-references given in the notes often tell me to look up imaginary verses and such. It's clearly not well-edited, but if you don't mind that, the content isn't bad. I mean, it's not exactly professional, but it's a start. My favorite part was when they said that 2nd Kingdoms was written by Samuel, who dies halfway through 1st Kingdoms.
I recently purchased this New Testament. It hasn't come in the mail yet (should arrive today or tomorrow), but I am excited to get it as it looks to be preferable translation for me. Has anyone else experience with this New Testament and do they prefer it over the OSB's New Testament?
Everybody beware of the one-volume black edition of this bible! It doesn't have the Patristic commentary in it, which is what makes it so good. The commentary is only in the two-volume version, which I think is not availible on Amazon (not when I got it, at least).
One of you (I forget who) extracted from me a not unwilling promise to read the OSB for a year, and I duly bought the NT+Psalms (Nashville, Tennessee, 1993, 1997). A number of comments come to mind:
1. I had the same problem as mentioned above by someone else: I couldn't follow the dates, and eventually got so lost that I read it only for about ten months.
The dates are almost impossible to follow out of a lectionary, because the pages are so thin. I keep a wall calendar for daily readings, which is much easier. That being said, the lectionary is mainly for liturgical and devotional purposes, whereas if one is interested in theological study it is probably better just to read it straight through.
2. I found very little in the comments that would be different from what an Evangelical would write. I am not saying that is a good thing or a bad thing - just making the observation.
The NT+Psalms version is sort of like that. It's more of a propaganda tool than anything else, and most of the editing committee is former Evangelicals. So it's to be expected that there would be similarities. Traditional Orthodox commentaries written by the Church Fathers say lots of things that would not be agreeable to an Evangelical (or most anyone else). St. John Chrysostom sticks out to me as a particularly "Protestant-sounding" commentator.
3. It seemed to be largely a commentary for beginners - again not a bad thing in itself at all; but it seemed to take me more deeply neither into the scriptures per se, nor into Orthodoxy in particular.
One monk said that the notes were written at the level of a "not-very-bright Sunday School class." In the new edition, which includes the Old Testament, the notes were revised, with superfluous material cut out and more Patristic material added in. The OT is particularly useful, because the notes explain the types and prophecies, which Protestant Bibles generally don't deal with as much.