Catholic Bible vs. Orthodox Bibles

[Catholic4Christ]

We Catholics sometimes like to bring up how Protestants “took out” several books from the Bible, while I have met Protestants who see those books as “extra” books the Catholics put in. I think most people aren’t bothered too much by it, while others take major issue when it comes to certain theological topics related to those books. It’s one of the many never-ending debates between Catholics and Protestants. Septugaint vs. Masoretic, Trent vs. Luther, and all that stuff.

Anywho, it is my understanding that the Orthodox churches have even more books from the Septugaint in their Bible(s) than us Catholics. However, I have never known Catholics and Orthodox Christians to argue over the books of the Bible like the Catholics and Protestants do. This seems odd, since the Catholics historically see the Orthodox as schismatic, and the Orthodox often seem to feel the same about the Catholic Church. I know the two don’t argue as much as Catholics and Protestants, but I have never even seen/heard it brought up.

Can anyone tell me what these Orthodox books are? Are they universal, or do they differ depending on which specific Orthodox we’re dealing with?

Do the Orthodox view the Catholic Bible as “incomplete” like we Catholics view Protestant Bibles? Conversely, does the Catholic Church view Orthodox Bibles as having “extra” books? Or, like Luther, do Catholics see these books as “helpful, but superfluous”? What are the arguments behind these things?

How long have these Bibles been different? Was it an East-West Schism issue, or just a regional thing?

In the books found in Orthodox Bibles, are there any major theological issues addressed? Why do the Catholics not have these books, while the Orthodox do?

I know those are a lot of questions, basically any info anyone can send my way would be great. Feel free to chime in, Catholics, Orthodox, or anyone who knows about Biblical history. Thanks

 

[thistle]

We Catholics sometimes like to bring up how Protestants “took out” several books from the Bible, while I have met Protestants who see those books as “extra” books the Catholics put in. I think most people aren’t bothered too much by it, while others take major issue when it comes to certain theological topics related to those books. It’s one of the many never-ending debates between Catholics and Protestants. Septugaint vs. Masoretic, Trent vs. Luther, and all that stuff.

Anywho, it is my understanding that the Orthodox churches have even more books from the Septugaint in their Bible(s) than us Catholics. However, I have never known Catholics and Orthodox Christians to argue over the books of the Bible like the Catholics and Protestants do. This seems odd, since the Catholics historically see the Orthodox as schismatic, and the Orthodox often seem to feel the same about the Catholic Church. I know the two don’t argue as much as Catholics and Protestants, but I have never even seen/heard it brought up.

Can anyone tell me what these Orthodox books are? Are they universal, or do they differ depending on which specific Orthodox we’re dealing with?

Do the Orthodox view the Catholic Bible as “incomplete” like we Catholics view Protestant Bibles? Conversely, does the Catholic Church view Orthodox Bibles as having “extra” books? Or, like Luther, do Catholics see these books as “helpful, but superfluous”? What are the arguments behind these things?

How long have these Bibles been different? Was it an East-West Schism issue, or just a regional thing?

In the books found in Orthodox Bibles, are there any major theological issues addressed? Why do the Catholics not have these books, while the Orthodox do?

I know those are a lot of questions, basically any info anyone can send my way would be great. Feel free to chime in, Catholics, Orthodox, or anyone who knows about Biblical history. Thanks

See attached link and scroll down to the table showing which Churches have which books.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_of_the_Bible

 

[MarcoPolo]

One reason is because unlike modern Protestants who are often repelled by the Deuterocanon, Catholics still treat extra Orthodox books with reverence. Also, the Orthodox do not seem to have a universally accepted canon even among themselves (see this Orthodox priest article under the heading “The Canon of the Old Testament”)

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Can anyone tell me what these Orthodox books are? Are they universal, or do they differ depending on which specific Orthodox we’re dealing with?

Here’s a slightly more complete list of the differences between the canons that will also show differences between the Orthodox churches. Once again, you will have to scroll down:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon

Do the Orthodox view the Catholic Bible as “incomplete” like we Catholics view Protestant Bibles? Conversely, does the Catholic Church view Orthodox Bibles as having “extra” books? Or, like Luther, do Catholics see these books as “helpful, but superfluous”? What are the arguments behind these things?

The Orthodox scholars that I’ve seen present on this topic basically say that the Catholics are free to have their own canon, just as the various Orthodox (or even Protestant groups) are free to have their own canons. They just don’t want the Catholic Church trying to dictate what’s in their own canon. I’m sure opinions vary widely on the issue though.

How long have these Bibles been different? Was it an East-West Schism issue, or just a regional thing?

The various canons developed independently of each other. They seem to have already been different in the fourth century, which binding texts into codices (bound books) started to become an issue.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

One reason is because unlike modern Protestants who are often repelled by the Deuterocanon, Catholics still treat extra Orthodox books with reverence. Also, the Orthodox do not seem to have a universally accepted canon even among themselves (see this Orthodox priest article under the heading “The Canon of the Old Testament”)

While this may be true of many Evangelicals, mainline Protestant Churches that follow the Revised Common Lectionary actually have more readings from the Deuterocanon than does the Roman Catholic Lectionary.

 

[bmullins]

While this may be true of many Evangelicals, mainline Protestant Churches that follow the Revised Common Lectionary actually have more readings from the Deuterocanon than does the Roman Catholic Lectionary.

I think that would be because the Catholic church doesn’t spend all of it’s time in one book or the other. It has a 3 year cycle that covers almost all of the bible. It would be difficult to quote from the duterocanocals very often when they make up such a small percentage of our faith (textual wise). I think the most often quoted for a Catholic would have to be the gospels, as we read from 1 of those 4 every single day. (Which makes sense, since Jesus is the focus of our faith.)

 

[Dave_Noonan]

I think that would be because the Catholic church doesn’t spend all of it’s time in one book or the other. It has a 3 year cycle that covers almost all of the bible. It would be difficult to quote from the duterocanocals very often when they make up such a small percentage of our faith (textual wise). I think the most often quoted for a Catholic would have to be the gospels, as we read from 1 of those 4 every single day. (Which makes sense, since Jesus is the focus of our faith.)

The Revised Common Lectionary is very similar and actually patterned after the Roman Catholic Lectionary and also utilizes a three-year cycle. For most Sundays the Gospel readings are identical.

Also, neither lectionary covers “almost all of the Bible” even when the daily readings are considered. The Sunday and Feast Day Catholic Lectionary covers 5.7% of the Old Testament–13 books of the O.T. don’t have any readings at all for Sundays or Feast Days, including Tobit, Judith and 1 Maccabees from the deuterocanon (Judith, for example, is never read from either at daily or Sunday Catholic Mass). The Sunday Catholic Lectionary covers 41% of the New Testament.

For more info see Normand Bonneau, O.M.I., The Sunday Lectionary. Liturgical Press, 1998, 48-49.

 

[MarcoPolo]

While this may be true of many Evangelicals, mainline Protestant Churches that follow the Revised Common Lectionary actually have more readings from the Deuterocanon than does the Roman Catholic Lectionary.

Well that is good to hear. What committee or group is responsible for assembling that Lectionary?

 

[bmullins]

The Revised Common Lectionary is very similar and actually patterned after the Roman Catholic Lectionary and also utilizes a three-year cycle. For most Sundays the Gospel readings are identical.

Also, neither lectionary covers “almost all of the Bible” even when the daily readings are considered. The Sunday and Feast Day Catholic Lectionary covers 5.7% of the Old Testament–13 books of the O.T. don’t have any readings at all for Sundays or Feast Days, including Tobit, Judith and 1 Maccabees from the deuterocanon (Judith, for example, is never read from either at daily or Sunday Catholic Mass). The Sunday Catholic Lectionary covers 41% of the New Testament.

For more info see Normand Bonneau, O.M.I., The Sunday Lectionary. Liturgical Press, 1998, 48-49.

You are correct that my characterization of it was off, I was repeating something I had been told without researching for myself. (I know better than to do that.) I will however state that according to the Lectionary Statistics we still hear 90% of the Gospels. Those should rightly be what we hear the most IMO.

Sorry for my error.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Well that is good to hear. What committee or group is responsible for assembling that Lectionary?

The primary group responsible was the Consultation on Common Texts (which included representatives from mainline Protestant churches and also representatives from the USCCB and the Canadian conference of Bishops). At the risk of over-simplifying, after Vatican II an effort was made by mainline Protestant bodies to make their prayers and lectionaries match, to the extent possible. (Though there was nothing that bound the various churches to necessarily follow the recommendations of the CCT.) The end result was the Catholic Lectionary plus some modifications. I would say the major difference between the Revised Common Lectionary and the Roman Catholic Lectionary is that it includes an optional continuous reading of the Old Testament. There are some other differences, such as when the Transfiguration reading falls, but by-and-large they are quite similar.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

You are correct that my characterization of it was off, I was repeating something I had been told without researching for myself. (I know better than to do that.) I will however state that according to the Lectionary Statistics we still hear 90% of the Gospels. Those should rightly be what we hear the most IMO.

Sorry for my error.

Yes on the Gospels (or almost) if you include the daily readings.

And don’t worry, even Cardinal Arinze (former Prefect of the Vatican’s Congregation for Divine Worship from 2002 to 2008) was mistaken about this

adoremus.org/Arinze-FDLC-Liturgy.html

(Scroll down to Section 2, paragraph 2). I think for some reason this is a very common misconception among Catholics.

 

[MarcoPolo]

The primary group responsible was the Consultation on Common Texts (which included representatives from mainline Protestant churches and also representatives from the USCCB and the Canadian conference of Bishops). At the risk of over-simplifying, after Vatican II an effort was made by mainline Protestant bodies to make their prayers and lectionaries match, to the extent possible. (Though there was nothing that bound the various churches to necessarily follow the recommendations of the CCT.) The end result was the Catholic Lectionary plus some modifications. I would say the major difference between the Revised Common Lectionary and the Roman Catholic Lectionary is that it includes an optional continuous reading of the Old Testament. There are some other differences, such as when the Transfiguration reading falls, but by-and-large they are quite similar.

By “mainline Protestants” do you mean ones that have a liturgical celebration of some kind? Because as near as I can tell from the pastors I hear whose sermons are recorded for radio, they just preach on whatever.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

By “mainline Protestants” do you mean ones that have a liturgical celebration of some kind? Because as near as I can tell from the pastors I hear whose sermons are recorded for radio, they just preach on whatever.

Yeah, I wouldn’t place too much stock in what you hear on the radio. A list of denominations that use the Revised Common Lectionary (at least to some extent) can be found here:

Scroll Down:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revised_Common_Lectionary

The daily and Sunday readings can be found here:

lectionary.library.vanderbilt.edu/

 

[MarcoPolo]

Yeah, I wouldn’t place too much stock in what you hear on the radio. A list of denominations that use the Revised Common Lectionary (at least to some extent) can be found here:

Scroll Down:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revised_Common_Lectionary

The daily and Sunday readings can be found here:

lectionary.library.vanderbilt.edu/

Thanks for that. And so you know, I don’t put much “stock” in their theology , although I do listen quite regularly, and I also know they do represent many views in the realm of Christian thought.

 

[Celticnovice]

While this may be true of many Evangelicals, mainline Protestant Churches that follow the Revised Common Lectionary actually have more readings from the Deuterocanon than does the Roman Catholic Lectionary.

WOW! I was unaware of this as well…