Eastern Catholic bible question

[sloth]

Hello,

Do eastern Catholics use the same 73 book bible as the Latin rite?

the reason why I ask is because I know that the Eastern Orthodox have a few extra books in there Canon that they believe are inspired.

Also why did the Latin rite reject the books that the Eastern Orthodox accepted? for example, 3rd Maccabees and 4th Maccabees

Thank you for your time,

Sloth

 

[psalm90]

The Orthodox Church does NOT HAVE a “canon” of scripture, or so says the introduction to this book:

amazon.com/Orthodox-Study-Bible-Hardcover-Christianity/dp/0718003594/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1479093802&sr=8-1&keywords=the+orthodox+study+bible

The OC does not recognize the validity of the Western councils which enumerated the texts of the Western canon. The OC seems to accept the Septuagint OT based on some sort of consensus, as best as I understand it.

I think the wording is the key, the Catholic Bible is based on the Septuagint, but does not include all of it. Some say that a lot of quotations from the OT (in the NT) are from the Septuagint, but I think they all are from the Septuagint. The reason for my statement (I could be wrong, I’m not an academic on this subject) is that the Septuagint is simply not totally different from the original Hebrew texts. So, where as some of the NT quotations appear to be from another version, there is no way to demonstrate that they are. I have not seen a statement on this one way or the other.

There’s at least one place in Acts where a paraphrased text from the OT is used, not a direct quote.

My first guess about why any books were rejected by the Church for inclusion in the canon of scripture is that the rejected books were gnostic writings and I think some of these existed before the Christian era.

If you wanted to put money down to study this more, I’d recommend the Septuagint from Oxford U Press. I bought the one I mentioned above. I should have gotten the Oxford version, but the one mentioned above is not a total loss. As far as being a “study”
Bible, the one mentioned above is rather “lite.”

 

[Becket1]

Byzantine Catholics use the same canon as the Eastern Orthodox. But for translations most Byzantine Catholics do use the NAB, RSVCE, RSV Oxford Annotated w/Deutercanonical (This version includes all of the books of the OT Septuagint), also the Orthodox Study Bible (NKJV based OT Septuagint full list of books (Maccabees 3, Psalm 151, etc. NKJV NT same as standard NKJV). Eastern Catholics are more forgiving in terms of the number of translations that are allowed to be used during the Divine Liturgy. Cannot speak for the other Eastern Catholics (Maronites, Coptic, etc).

 

[SyroMalankara]

Syriac, Malankara, Chaldean, Maronite, and Malabar Catholic and non-Catholic Churches look to the Syriac Peshitto as the standard

 

[Becket1]

Syriac, Malankara, Chaldean, Maronite, and Malabar Catholic and non-Catholic Churches look to the Syriac Peshitto as the standard

So what if you only know English?. What English translations do they recommend?. I assume they are like the Byzantines. And can choose from a variety for their liturgical texts.
One more question. How many books do you list in your OT canon?.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Catholics use RSVCE, NAB (mostly limited to US), Oxford, JB
Orthodox/Assyrians tend to use OSB, KJB, RSV even seen limited NIV use

 

[pablope]

Hello,

Do eastern Catholics use the same 73 book bible as the Latin rite?

the reason why I ask is because I know that the Eastern Orthodox have a few extra books in there Canon that they believe are inspired.

Also why did the Latin rite reject the books that the Eastern Orthodox accepted? for example, 3rd Maccabees and 4th Maccabees

Thank you for your time,

Sloth

This link should give you a good explanation:

catholicbridge.com/orthodox/why_orthodox_bible_is_different_from_catholic.php

It is true that there are some additional books (such as 3 & 4 Maccabees) which are commonly (but not necessarily formally) found in modern, published Eastern Orthodox Old Testaments. Now, I make this distinction between “commonly” and “formally” because the simple reality is that the modern Eastern Orthodox Church does not possess a formal, universally-approved Biblical canon. Rather, there is some confusion among Eastern Orthodox as to which books properly constitute the canon of the Bible. And, to understand this, you have to understand what “canon” originally referred to and how the canon of the Christian Bible (that is, the Biblical canon of the Catholic Church) actually came into being in the first place.

The term “canon” means is that a book is approved for reading at the Divine Liturgy --that is, the Mass. This is what “canon” (a Greek word meaning “rule”) originally referred to. The “canonical” books were those books which were approved for reading at the Liturgy.

In addition to this, there is the fact that Greek Orthodox Churches (especially) have a more fluid (less formal or legalistic) notion of how the idea of a “canonical book” should be applied. For example, in the Greek Orthodox Liturgy, they have NEVER read from the Book of Revelation. And, because of this, many modern Greeks will claim that Revelation is “not canonical.” …because they do not read from it in their Greek Liturgy. Now, the fact that the Russian Orthodox Church does read from Revelation in their, Russian Liturgy is beside the point. So, for the Eastern Orthodox, “canonical” does not really refer to a univesally-agreed upon canon, but to the common regional practice of specific Churches. Uunfortunately, this has led some modern Greek and Antiochian Orthodox to claim that the Book of Revelation is “not inspired” and/or “not binding” on them, which is a modernist revision (a heretical novelty), which no ancient Greek or Antiochian would ever claim. For, what their forefathers would say is that Revelation (or another book like it) is still Divinely inspired, but just not canonical (i.e., not approved for reading at their Liturgy). And, for those Easterners who did recognze the binding authority of the Cathaginian canon, they would of course say that Revelation is universally binding (i.e., canonical in a universal sense), but simply not part of their local Liturgical canon.

 

[commenter]

Do the Eastern Catholic Churches follow the same readings at liturgy as the Latin Church? Do they utilize, for instance, the Book of Revelation, which an earlier post states is not used for liturgy in parts of the Orthodox Churches? There are some bi ritual priests in our diocese, I suppose they sometimes say Mass (Divine Liturgy) in both rites on a given Sunday.

Are the liturgical readings for Orthodox Churches mostly the same, or do they vary among the Orthodox considerably through the year? Do they ever correspond with the Catholic readings (Latin, or Eastern?) for a given week?

 

[SyroMalankara]

Do the Eastern Catholic Churches follow the same readings at liturgy as the Latin Church? Do they utilize, for instance, the Book of Revelation, which an earlier post states is not used for liturgy in parts of the Orthodox Churches? There are some bi ritual priests in our diocese, I suppose they sometimes say Mass (Divine Liturgy) in both rites on a given Sunday.

Are the liturgical readings for Orthodox Churches mostly the same, or do they vary among the Orthodox considerably through the year? Do they ever correspond with the Catholic readings (Latin, or Eastern?) for a given week?

They don’t correspond to the Latin readings, since the Lectionaries for all these Churches are different. The Orthodox and correspondong Eastern Catholic Church have much more greater degree of having the same readings. Once in a while the readings will overlap for a feast or fast with the Latin.

 

[MorEphrem]

Syriac, Malankara, Chaldean, Maronite, and Malabar Catholic and non-Catholic Churches look to the Syriac Peshitto as the standard

Bold added by myself

While that would be ideal, I’m the only Maronite I know who reads the Peshitto. From a discussion I had with an American prelate, I know in the US I know they use the NAB . I tried to explain the necessity of using the same text of the Syriac Fathers and having continuity with the rest of tradition (since there are many notable discrepancies). The example I gave was Zec. 6:12, quoted during the feast of Denho - the Dawning or Epiphany - which in the Peshitto reads that his name is “effulgence” and he shall “nednah” (root d-n-h, same as Denho), which gives an entire light imagery (e.g. the dawning sun) that simply doesn’t exist in the NAB. In the offices for Denho, the understanding of Epiphany being pre-revealed by prophecy is completely lost, amongst other things. Needless to say, the prelate did not see the problem.

 

[dochawk]

There is variation among the various Orthodox Churches as to which book are included in there cannon. Never more than about a dozen not included by the RC, if I remember correctly.

Eastern Catholic Churches usually enter pretty much “as is” from orthodoxy.

Although Rome did draw the line on including Pontius Pilate in the calendar for the Ethiopian Catholics . . . (some EO believe he became Christian and was martyred for it)

hawk

 

[sloth]

If the 73 book canon was set ecumenically at Trent. how can Eastern Catholics use the Orthodox canon?

 

[Zabdi_Premjit]

If the 73 book canon was set ecumenically at Trent. how can Eastern Catholics use the Orthodox canon?

Perhaps an important question needs to be considered: what is the relationship between a canon and what is considered scripture?

We know that after much dicussion, the Church Fathers settled on a scriptural canon of 27 NT books and 49 (or 66, using a different enumeration) OT books. Beyond that, there was recognised the existence of the Anagignoskomena, that is, those books beyond the canon that were considered profitable to be read. At no point was there a universally agreed upon list for the Anagignoskomena. Rather, it varied by local custom. So, as the books of scripture came to be compiled in singular volumes (the Bible), there was naturally variance in what books were included.

So, with the ancient precedent in mind, does the declaration of a second canon at Trent constitute a limiting of what is allowable as scripture? Arguably, the intention of Trent’s second canon was not to exclude books, but to combat the strain of Protestant thought which rejected the ancient use of the Anagignoskomena. I see no reason to see the concept of the Anagignoskomena as having been negated by the second canon. Therefore, the continuing use of books, by the Eastern/Oriental Catholics, not included in the second canon seems in accord with Holy Tradition, local customs,and the spirit of the council’s ruling.

I am not the spokesman of the Catholic Church though, so I hope someone corrects me if I am mistaken on any point.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Bold added by myself

While that would be ideal, I’m the only Maronite I know who reads the Peshitto. From a discussion I had with an American prelate, I know in the US I know they use the NAB . I tried to explain the necessity of using the same text of the Syriac Fathers and having continuity with the rest of tradition (since there are many notable discrepancies). The example I gave was Zec. 6:12, quoted during the feast of Denho - the Dawning or Epiphany - which in the Peshitto reads that his name is “effulgence” and he shall “nednah” (root d-n-h, same as Denho), which gives an entire light imagery (e.g. the dawning sun) that simply doesn’t exist in the NAB. In the offices for Denho, the understanding of Epiphany being pre-revealed by prophecy is completely lost, amongst other things. Needless to say, the prelate did not see the problem.

Prelates not seeing the “light”, a more common than not occurrence!

 

[Evan]

I find that Trent, when it laid down the list of inspired books, did not close the list. ie did not say this list and this list only are the inspired books.

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.

I think Trent was looking for a the books that had been used by all, Eastern and Western, for 1000 years or more. So if some books were used, but not by all churches, Trent left open the list so a future council could include or exclude them. The argument of Trent was with the reformers who were removing books that had been accepted by ALL churches up to that time. So, recognizing the leadership of the Holy Spirit within the churches, those books used by all must be inspired as the Spirit would not lead the entire church astray.

 

[sloth]

I find that Trent, when it laid down the list of inspired books, did not close the list. ie did not say this list and this list only are the inspired books.

I think Trent was looking for a the books that had been used by all, Eastern and Western, for 1000 years or more. So if some books were used, but not by all churches, Trent left open the list so a future council could include or exclude them. The argument of Trent was with the reformers who were removing books that had been accepted by ALL churches up to that time. So, recognizing the leadership of the Holy Spirit within the churches, those books used by all must be inspired as the Spirit would not lead the entire church astray.

Thanks for your Post Evan.

that is awesome