Bible Canon and Orthodox

[fisherman_carl]

One thing I don’t understand is about the canon of scripture and the Orthodox. The canon was decided on at the council of Rome in 382 AD and then confirmed at other councils like Carthage and Hippo. Did the early Orthodox accept this canon and then later change it? Or were they never part of these councils and if so why not?

 

[ConstantineTG]

One thing I don’t understand is about the canon of scripture and the Orthodox. The canon was decided on at the council of Rome in 382 AD and then confirmed at other councils like Carthage and Hippo. Did the early Orthodox accept this canon and then later change it? Or were they never part of these councils and if so why not?

The Canon was never closed until the Protestant Reformation. Both East and West.

 

[pablope]

One thing I don’t understand is about the canon of scripture and the Orthodox. The canon was decided on at the council of Rome in 382 AD and then confirmed at other councils like Carthage and Hippo. Did the early Orthodox accept this canon and then later change it? Or were they never part of these councils and if so why not?

I think there was a council sometime in AD800s that ratified it for the Orthodox.

However, the Bible canon is not a source of dispute between the CC and OC as the Bible was never intended to replace the authority of the bishops.

One of the original intents for the canon was to have a standard set of readings for the Mass.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I think there was a council sometime in AD800s that ratified it for the Orthodox.

However, the Bible canon is not a source of dispute between the CC and OC as the Bible was never intended to replace the authority of the bishops.

One of the original intents for the canon was to have a standard set of readings for the Mass.

Again, it was only around the Reformation that the canon was closed for both East and West. I believe it was Trent for the West. I forgot the Council in the East that defined the Canon. We (both) never thought about closing the Canon until Martin Luther started ripping stuff out.

 

[MarcoPolo]

The Canon was never closed until the Protestant Reformation. Both East and West.

In my reading of the text of Trent, the canon was not declared “closed,” but rather the books that had been received were articulated as having the highest degree of certainty that they were divinely inspired. The text is an affirmation of certain books, but there is no mention of the impossibility of the status of other texts––even if that possibility is unlikely.

I don’t believe the Orthodox have declared a “closed” canon either. For example:*there are also inconsistencies in the different Traditions of Orthodoxy on which books are to be included in the greater Canon. For example, the Russian Orthodox Tradition or the Slavonic Bible includes 2 Edras, whereas the Greek Orthodox Tradition of the Septuagint does not. This lack of uniform use led P. Bratsiotes to make the following observation (quoted by S. Agourides in his article The Bible in the Greek Orthodox Church, p. 240): “It is for this reason that the fixing of the Canon of the Old Testament is proposed as one of the subjects of a future Great Synod of the Eastern Orthodox Church”. So even today, the issue of the Old Testament Canon remains open for discussion.

• Orthodox Fr. R. Stergiou*

 

[pablope]

Again, it was only around the Reformation that the canon was closed for both East and West. I believe it was Trent for the West. I forgot the Council in the East that defined the Canon. We (both) never thought about closing the Canon until Martin Luther started ripping stuff out.

I think there was an Eastern council that defined the NT…sometime in the AD800?

Well let me take that back…it did not define the NT, I think it accepted or ratified the earlier West councils that defined the NT.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I think there was an Eastern council that defined the NT…sometime in the AD800?

Well let me take that back…it did not define the NT, I think it accepted or ratified the earlier West councils that defined the NT.

I remember that it was not long after the Reformation, 1500s or 1600s. I have to dig out that source I read not too long ago.

edit:

Just to add, it is not to say that the canon was fluid over the centuries from the time of St. Athanasius until the Reformation. It was generally accepted that St. Athanasius’ list of NT books were canon by East and West. But there was no official canonical pronouncement as to what is the official canon of the Bible until the Reformation forced East and West to, so to speak, write it in stone.

 

[Augustine3]

The Canon was never closed until the Protestant Reformation. Both East and West.

I did a Google search and found most websites confirm the bible canon was closed by Pope Innocent I. in the 5th century. However, I couldn’t find any solid evidence for it.

I don’t think the council of Trent closed the canon. The council merely reaffirmed the canon as a response to the Protestant reformation. Protestants were throwing a few books out of the NT. There’s the famous saying of Martin Luther regarding the letter of St James, he called it “ an epistle of straw”.

According to Dr. Jeannie Constantinou the Orthodox Church does not have a formal bible canon as it has never saw the need to define one. There is unanimous agreement among the Orthodox Ecclesial authorities of which books are inspired.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I did a Google search and found most websites confirm the bible canon was closed by Pope Innocent I. in the 5th century. However, I couldn’t find any solid evidence for it.

I don’t think the council of Trent closed the canon. The council merely reaffirmed the canon as a response to the Protestant reformation. Protestants were throwing a few books out of the NT. There’s the famous saying of Martin Luther regarding the letter of St James, he called it “ an epistle of straw”.

According to Dr. Jeannie Constantinou the Orthodox Church does not have a formal bible canon as it has never saw the need to define one. There is unanimous agreement among the Orthodox Ecclesial authorities of which books are inspired.

That was my amendment to my post. That while there was never any official “closing” of the canon, it wasn’t like East and West added or removed books over the centuries. Indeed they never saw any need to make any official declaration on what the canon is until the Reformation as there was never any need. That is until Martin Luther.

 

[Augustine3]

That was my amendment to my post. That while there was never any official “closing” of the canon, it wasn’t like East and West added or removed books over the centuries. Indeed they never saw any need to make any official declaration on what the canon is until the Reformation as there was never any need. That is until Martin Luther.

Sorry I was rushing (that’s what happens when people rush!)

Why is there a difference in the list of inspired books between the Catholics and Orthodox (see link below). Sorry if you’ve already mentioned this and I’ve missed it, I’m still rushing, lol.

bible.ca/b-canon-orthodox-catholic-christian-bible-books.htm

 

[ConstantineTG]

Sorry I was rushing (that’s what happens when people rush!)

Why is there a difference in the list of inspired books between the Catholics and Orthodox (see link below). Sorry if you’ve already mentioned this and I’ve missed it, I’m still rushing, lol.

bible.ca/b-canon-orthodox-catholic-christian-bible-books.htm

Well the East kept the Septuagint from the First Century as the de facto Old Testament canon.

Note that the Jews themselves did not have a closed canon. When Martin Luther started removing books from the Old Testament, it is because he compared the books from the Masoretic Text which is actually a later compilation of the Jewish Canon. He assumed that because it is the canon the Jews are using at his time, that it was the official canon from the time of Christ.

 

[Augustine3]

Well the East kept the Septuagint from the First Century as the de facto Old Testament canon.

Note that the Jews themselves did not have a closed canon. When Martin Luther started removing books from the Old Testament, it is because he compared the books from the Masoretic Text which is actually a later compilation of the Jewish Canon. He assumed that because it is the canon the Jews are using at his time, that it was the official canon from the time of Christ.

Yes I agree with that, but the bible canon of the OT obviously differs slightly between our two groups. How did that happen? The OT bible canon was clear from the 4th century until the unfortunate schism of the Catholic and Orthodox church. Forgive me but it almost seems that the Orthodox reviewed and slightly edited the list after the schism…

 

[ConstantineTG]

Yes I agree with that, but the bible canon of the OT obviously differs slightly between our two groups. How did that happen? The OT bible canon was clear from the 4th century until the unfortunate schism of the Catholic and Orthodox church. Forgive me but it almost seems that the Orthodox reviewed and slightly edited the list after the schism…

The thing about Orthodoxy is our dogma is encoded in our Liturgies. I’m not sure exactly which OT books are in every Liturgical service, either directly read as scripture or referenced in some way, but that is one of the clues why a certain book has to be in the canon. Curiously though in the Orthodox Church, we never read the Apocalypse/Revelations in Church, but it still is in our canon.

I think I’m at the limits of my knowledge about the formation of the Biblical Canon. I haven’t taken enough interest on this subject to look further into it.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

When Martin Luther started removing books from the Old Testament, it is because he compared the books from the Masoretic Text which is actually a later compilation of the Jewish Canon. He assumed that because it is the canon the Jews are using at his time, that it was the official canon from the time of Christ.

This is false because a) Martin Luther didn’t remove books from the Bible and b) his views on the biblical canon had absolutely nothing to do with the Jewish canon.

I’d be curious as to where you are getting your information. Citation?

 

[ConstantineTG]

This is false because a) Martin Luther didn’t remove books from the Bible and 2) his views on the biblical canon had absolutely nothing to do with the Jewish canon.

I’d be curious as to where you are getting your information. Citation?

Of course he did. He wanted to remove the Epistle of James even because it contradicted his “faith alone” edit of the Bible.

The burden is upon you to prove that Martin Luther’s version of the Bible existed before Martin Luther. Because the Orthodox have always used the full Septuagint from the very beginning, that is 1500 years before Martin Luther.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Yes I agree with that, but the bible canon of the OT obviously differs slightly between our two groups. How did that happen? The OT bible canon was clear from the 4th century until the unfortunate schism of the Catholic and Orthodox church. Forgive me but it almost seems that the Orthodox reviewed and slightly edited the list after the schism…

Actually the differences are more than “slight.” Here is a handy chart where you can compare the differences between the Orthodox churches and the Western Churches. (You’ll need to scroll down to the bottom of the article.)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon

There’s no such thing as “the Orthodox Church” and there are far more than “two groups”; there are many Orthodox Churches and their biblical canons also differ between them.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Actually the differences are more than “slight.” Here is a handy chart where you can compare the differences between the Orthodox churches and the Western Churches. (You’ll need to scroll down to the bottom of the article.)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon

There’s no such thing as “the Orthodox Church” and there are far more than “two groups”; there are many Orthodox Churches and their biblical canons also differ between them.

There is one Orthodox Church. Do not confuse us with Churches who call themselves Orthodox but are not in communion with us. It is the same way that Old Catholics are not Roman Catholics.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Of course he did. He wanted to remove the Epistle of James even because it contradicted his “faith alone” edit of the Bible.

The burden is upon you to prove that Martin Luther’s version of the Bible existed before Martin Luther. Because the Orthodox have always used the full Septuagint from the very beginning, that is 1500 years before Martin Luther.

Martin Luther didn’t remove any books from the Bible, at least from the perspective of the West. While he did critique the Epistle of James in his introduction to the Epistle he didn’t “want to remove it.” Again I’d appreciate a citation or any evidence whatsoever for your claim.

Luther’s Bible (published in 1535) includes all of the Books of the Western Canon plus the Prayer of Manasseh. Following the Western Tradition, he excludes books such as 3 and 4 Maccabees which are part of the Septuagint.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Martin Luther didn’t remove any books from the Bible, at least from the perspective of the West. While he did critique the Epistle of James in his introduction to the Epistle he didn’t “want to remove it.” Again I’d appreciate a citation or any evidence whatsoever for your claim.

Luther’s Bible (published in 1535) includes all of the Books of the Western Canon plus the Prayer of Manasseh. Following the Western Tradition, he excludes books such as 3 and 4 Maccabees which are part of the Septuagint.

He removed the section of what today is called the Deuterocanonicals, because they weren’t part of the Masoretic Text.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

He removed the section of what today is called the Deuterocanonicals, because they weren’t part of the Masoretic Text.

No, he had them translated into German and included them his Bible. As has been discussed on many, many threads on this forum, the removal of the Deuterocanoncials happened much later in history via the British Bible Society’s efforts to produce a cheaper Bible.

And again, his views on the canon have absolutely nothing all to do with what’s in or not in the Masoretic Text–Luther was hardly “Jewish friendly.”

Now I’m curious about your reluctance to tell me where you’re getting your information.