Are Eastern Catholic Bibles the same as the Latin Rite?

[jas84173]

I have been studying about different biblical canons recently and was actually kind of shocked to learn that Eastern Orthodox Churches have more books than Roman Catholics. To an extent the books I speak of are 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras( which is called 3 Esdras in the Slavonic Bible), the Prayer of Mannaseh, Psalm 151, 3 and 4 Maccabees. My question is , since eastern Catholics do have a history with Orthodoxy do their Bibles differ from the Latin rite or are they the Same?

 

[babochka]

We accept the same canon as the Eastern Orthodox.

In the Byzantine Catholic Church (Ruthenian), we use the New American Bible for the Epistle and Gospel. This doesn’t pose a problem, as none of the readings come from the books in questions. I don’t know what the situation is in other languages/countries. I use an Orthodox Study Bible or the Ignatius Bible at home. The Orthodox Study Bible contains the books in question, the Ignatius does not. It doesn’t really come up much.

 

[Trep]

The question of canon is kind of messy in Eastern Orthodoxy, in part because there’s been no single council declaring one.

Generally speaking, the canon used is the one that came out of the anti-Calvinist Council of Jerusalem (which is what the Orthodox Study Bible uses), but you will also find Greek and Russian canons with different books considered to be appendixes…And then there’s the Russian synodal translation of the 19th century, which uses the Protestant canon.

Expand the question to the Oriental Orthodox churches, and you have yet different canons. (The Armenians, Copts and Ethiopians all have some difference, with the Ethiopians having the most extra, including a broader and narrower canon.)

I don’t actually know the answer to your question. I’m just bloviating.

 

[Spyridon]

This question has been asked several times on this forum before.

I think the Roman Rite Catholic Church has spoken definitely on what IS Sacred Scripture, but not what is NOT Sacred Scripture. In other words, the current Biblical Canon is technically open ended so long as you don’t exclude any of the 73 books Universally accepted.

Here is what user @twf said back in 2010
“The Tridentine canon is comprised of those books that the extraordinary magisterium of the Catholic Church has declared to be inspired and without error. This infallible declaration does not, however, in my opinion, exclude the possibility of other books being be venerated and used liturgically in various local traditions. The charism of infallibility, enjoyed by the Roman Pontiff and ecumenical councils, can be understood as a negative protection. The Church can not declare non-Scripture to be Scripture, but the council fathers may not have been inspired to include all possible Biblical texts.”

Here is the relevant text from Session IV of the Ecumenical Council of Trent, held on April 8th, A.D. 1546:

"(The Synod) following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament–seeing that one God is the author of both --as also the said traditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by Christ’s own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession.

And it has thought it meet that a list of the sacred books be inserted in this decree, lest a doubt may arise in any one’s mind, which are the books that are received by this Synod. They are as set down here below: of the Old Testament: the five books of Moses, to wit, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first book of Esdras, and the second which is entitled Nehemias; Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidical Psalter, consisting of a hundred and fifty psalms; the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch; Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, to wit, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of the Machabees, the first and the second.

 

[Spyridon]

Continued

Of the New Testament: the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, (one) to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, (one) to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, (one) to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the apostle, three of John the apostle, one of the apostle James, one of Jude the apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the apostle. But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.

Let all, therefore, understand, in what order, and in what manner, the said Synod, after having laid the foundation of the Confession of faith, will proceed, and what testimonies and authorities it will mainly use in confirming dogmas, and in restoring morals in the Church

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Part of the issue is there are some Eastern Rite Catholics who do not think they must abide by all 21 Ecumenical Councils, while some say they do. Consequently, the answer may vary based upon who you ask.

God bless,
Dave

 

[babochka]

How is this an issue? Since there is no Ecumenical Council that has addressed the issue of the specific books that are found in various Orthodox canons, but missing from the Roman Catholic canon, I don’t think it matters whether an Eastern Catholic thinks he or she is bound by any particular council. We are free to use them or not.

 

[Vico]

How is this an issue? Since there is no Ecumenical Council that has addressed the issue of the specific books that are found in various Orthodox canons, but missing from the Roman Catholic canon, I don’t think it matters whether an Eastern Catholic thinks he or she is bound by any particular council. We are free to use them or not.

Council of Trent, Session IV, April 8, 1546 (Denzinger 784):

Books of the Old Testament: The five books of Moses, namely, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first book of Esdras, and the second which is called Nehemias, Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Psalter of David consisting of 150 psalms, the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias with Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel, the twelve minor Prophets, that is Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Michaeas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of the Machabees, the first and the second.

Books of the New Testament: the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles, written by Luke the Evangelist, fourteen epistles of Paul the Apostle, to the Romans, to the Corinthians two, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Phi lemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the Apostle, three of John the Apostle, one of the Apostle James, one of the Apostle Jude, and the Apocalypse of John the Apostle. If anyone, however, should not accept the said books as sacred and canonical, entire with all their parts, as they were wont to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate edition, and if both knowingly and deliberately he should condemn the aforesaid traditions let him be anathema.

http://patristica.net/denzinger/

 

[babochka]

If anyone, however, should not accept the said books as sacred and canonical, entire with all their parts, as they were wont to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate edition, and if both knowingly and deliberately he should condemn the aforesaid traditions let him be anathema.

This tells us that these books are definitively scared and canonical. It does nothing to tell us that no others are. Rejecting they Orthodox canon has never been a condition of reunion and, to my knowledge, never been an issue one way or another.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

If anyone, however, should not accept the said books as sacred and canonical, entire with all their parts, as they were wont to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate edition, and if both knowingly and deliberately he should condemn the aforesaid traditions let him be anathema.

This tells us that these books are definitively scared and canonical. It does nothing to tell us that no others are. Rejecting they Orthodox canon has never been a condition of reunion and, to my knowledge, never been an issue one way or another.

The Council of Trent addressed exclusion of Books and their parts.

I think it is Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) 52 in Biblia Sacra Vulgata and Nova Vulgata that is missing in the Eastern Orthodox Septuagint. Some of the sacred and canonical books are not included in the Syriac Orthodox version (Peshitta).