Eastern Orthodox vs. Catholic Biblical Canon

[lloydbirdman]

Greetings,
Does anyone know how the Eastern Orthodox churches ended up with different biblical canons? I thought that the biblical canon was settled in the late 300’s; long before the orthodox and catholics split.
Also, do the eastern catholics keep the biblical canon of their orthodox counterparts (Coptic Catholic, etc.)?
Thanks,
Lloyd

 

[JRKH]

I can’;t answer you second queston but as to the differing canon’s one must recognize that the Canon determined ca 400 was not a “Closed Canon”. The Canon was not officially “closed” until Trent.
Also one needs to recognize that the NT is the same in both the RC and EO canon’s.
The difference is in the number fo OT books used.

Obviously neither the East or West considered this to be a problem worth splitting over which gives one a sense of how the OT canon was viewed by the Church overall.

Peace
James

 

[amber_lux]

lloydbirdman;:

Does anyone know how the Eastern Orthodox churches ended up with different biblical canons?

Custom.

Which is why some of them have a 28 book NT.

Amber

 

[Publisher]

I can’;t answer you second queston but as to the differing canon’s one must recognize that the Canon determined ca 400 was not a “Closed Canon”. The Canon was not officially “closed” until Trent.
Also one needs to recognize that the NT is the same in both the RC and EO canon’s.
The difference is in the number fo OT books used.

**Obviously neither the East or West considered this to be a problem worth splitting over which gives one a sense of how the OT canon was viewed by the Church overall. **Peace
James

Good point…which causes me to wonder…if “neither the East or the West considered this to be a problem worths splitting over…”…why are Protestants declared to have an “incomplete Bible”…wouldn’t Catholics have and “incomplete Bible” as far as the Orthodox are concerned? Also since the DC/Apoc books HAVE HISTORICALLY been in dispute since the earliest of times…why the cry against he Protestant OT?

From what I have read, no “infallible doctrine” has been put forth in them or declared based on the DC/Apoc books.

It has been stated that Jesus and the apostles used the LXX…the writers of the NT used the LXX…I don’t believe the LXX was in common use in Palestine as it was a Greek translation for the Diaspora…Greek speaking NT writers used it…doesn’t mean Jesus and the apostles used it as well…except for perhaps Paul…who was part of the Diaspora anyway.

 

[dzheremi]

And you’re all way, way off according to the Ethiopians…

 

[Bluegoat]

Good point…which causes me to wonder…if “neither the East or the West considered this to be a problem worths splitting over…”…why are Protestants declared to have an “incomplete Bible”…wouldn’t Catholics have and “incomplete Bible” as far as the Orthodox are concerned? Also since the DC/Apoc books HAVE HISTORICALLY been in dispute since the earliest of times…why the cry against he Protestant OT?

From what I have read, no “infallible doctrine” has been put forth in them or declared based on the DC/Apoc books.

It has been stated that Jesus and the apostles used the LXX…the writers of the NT used the LXX…I don’t believe the LXX was in common use in Palestine as it was a Greek translation for the Diaspora…Greek speaking NT writers used it…doesn’t mean Jesus and the apostles used it as well…except for perhaps Paul…who was part of the Diaspora anyway.

I think the answer is simply that no one has ever considered it a problem that the East etc had different canons - everyone was happy with that.

In the case of the Protestants, there was a problem, and they were clearly a sectarian group making a unilateral decision of sorts, apart from their local hierarchy.

But this is not, IMO, a a huge stumbling block in the end, compared to other issues, despite what some people who post here at CAF think.

 

[Publisher]

I think the answer is simply that no one has ever considered it a problem that the East etc had different canons - everyone was happy with that.

In the case of the Protestants, there was a problem, and they were clearly a sectarian group making a unilateral decision of sorts, apart from their local hierarchy.

But this is not, IMO, a a huge stumbling block in the end, compared to other issues, despite what some people who post here at CAF think.

LOL…neither do I…but this seems to be one brought up quite a bit…many of us Protestants use an “expanded edition” of scriptures…which is even “more complete” than the Catholic canon…the Oxford Study Bible with Apox/DC Expanded edition IS a Protestant version.

 

[JRKH]

Good point…which causes me to wonder…if “neither the East or the West considered this to be a problem worths splitting over…”…why are Protestants declared to have an “incomplete Bible”…wouldn’t Catholics have and “incomplete Bible” as far as the Orthodox are concerned? Also since the DC/Apoc books HAVE HISTORICALLY been in dispute since the earliest of times…why the cry against he Protestant OT?

I think that Bluegoat makes a good point about canon being a somewhat minor issue between us.
However, I think that the reason it is brought up is this. The Protestant reformation is built largely upon the concept of Sola Scriptura - That the Bible is complete and inerrant. Yet at the time of the reformation the approved canon consisted of at least 73 books. Certainly this was the canon that Luther had.
So - seemingly - in one breath the reformers declared the Bible “complete and inerrant” and in the next breath they changed the “complete and inerrant” bible by removing books from it… To me this was highly disengenuous on their part.

The fact that some of the books were questioned by various individuals over the centuries really has nothing to do the fact that Bishops of the unified Christian Church, and in multiple councils determined that the 73 books were canonical.

From what I have read, no “infallible doctrine” has been put forth in them or declared based on the DC/Apoc books.

In large part I agree with this, howver we do have the passage in 2 Maccabees that is VERY strong evidence for Purgatory and praying for the dead. Protestants reject this of course as “not biblical evidence” - but who’s fault is that??

It has been stated that Jesus and the apostles used the LXX…the writers of the NT used the LXX…I don’t believe the LXX was in common use in Palestine as it was a Greek translation for the Diaspora…Greek speaking NT writers used it…doesn’t mean Jesus and the apostles used it as well…except for perhaps Paul…who was part of the Diaspora anyway.

This is one that I will leave for the experts.
The one thing that I believe points to the larger canon AND coincidentally is based on an oft-used quote by protestants in support of SS is from St Paul who says, “ALL Scripture is God breathed…” and since, as you say above, Paul was in the Diaspora, writing to Timothy, a Bishop in the Diaspora, It seems very likely that Paul was refering to the OT used in the Diaspora - which would have been the LXX…

Peace
James

 

[Harpazo]

Christ is Ascended!

Any Orthodox I’ve come in contact with (lay, clergy, monastic) doesn’t think about Catholic Bibles or their canon. Orthodox don’t think of their own canon that much either. We just accept what has been given to us and hold onto it. I personally don’t see it as a big deal.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[JRKH]

Christ is Ascended!

Any Orthodox I’ve come in contact with (lay, clergy, monastic) doesn’t think about Catholic Bibles or their canon. Orthodox don’t think of their own canon that much either. We just accept what has been given to us and hold onto it. I personally don’t see it as a big deal.

In Christ,
Andrew

I honestly don’t think it would be that big of a deal in the west either if it hadn’t been for the Protestant SS Schism.

Peace
James

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Lloyd,

Greetings,
Does anyone know how the Eastern Orthodox churches ended up with different biblical canons? I thought that the biblical canon was settled in the late 300’s; long before the orthodox and catholics split.

Local Churches always had different biblical canons. The Seventh Ecumenical Council confirmed the Scripture Canons of local Churches, even while they were slightly different from each other.

What Pope St. Damasus did in the latter 4th century was only for the Western Churches, not the universal Church.

Also, do the eastern catholics keep the biblical canon of their orthodox counterparts (Coptic Catholic, etc.)?

The Council of Trent never closed the Canon, but simply determined the minimum number of books which MUST be accepted by the Catholic Church. This basic set of books is accepted by all the Churches in the Catholic communion, though some Catholic Churches may have a few more than others.

Also keep in mind that the Council of Trent only made a judgment on which books are to be regarded as profitable for judgment of doctrine and morals. These books are what are specifically designated as “canonical.” There are other books that Tradition recognizes to be equally inspired, and profitable for spiritual edification. Some Churches have retained such books as Scripture, though not indeed as canonical.

I can’t speak for the other Churches, but the Canon of the Coptic Catholic Church is identical to that of the Latin Church - which comes as no surprise since the Canon of the Coptic Orthodox Church is identical to that of the Latin Catholic Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Bluegoat]

I can’t speak for the other Churches, but the Canon of the Coptic Catholic Church is identical to that of the Latin Church - which comes as no surprise since the Canon of the Coptic Orthodox Church is identical to that of the Latin Catholic Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

Was that always the case, or was it a change?

 

[Volodymyr]

Dear brother Lloyd,

Local Churches always had different biblical canons

Marduk

This well explained by Marduk. Such books called Second-Canon books are called such in Orthodox church but are recognized as part of original canon by Catolic, Ethiopian, Coptic and Armenian Churches.

Also Ethiopian church accepts what might call Third Canon or pseudoepigrafiya as part of complete canon of Bible:
Book of Enokh
Ascension of Isaia
Testament of Moise
Book of Jubilees

Вознeслся єси во слaве Христос
Christ was going up in glory!

 

[Publisher]

I think that Bluegoat makes a good point about canon being a somewhat minor issue between us.
However, I think that the reason it is brought up is this. The Protestant reformation is built largely upon the concept of Sola Scriptura - That the Bible is complete and inerrant. Yet at the time of the reformation the approved canon consisted of at least 73 books. Certainly this was the canon that Luther had.
So - seemingly - in one breath the reformers declared the Bible “complete and inerrant” and in the next breath they changed the “complete and inerrant” bible by removing books from it… To me this was highly disengenuous on their part.

The fact that some of the books were questioned by various individuals over the centuries really has nothing to do the fact that Bishops of the unified Christian Church, and in multiple councils determined that the 73 books were canonical.

In large part I agree with this, howver we do have the passage in 2 Maccabees that is VERY strong evidence for Purgatory and praying for the dead. Protestants reject this of course as “not biblical evidence” - but who’s fault is that??

This is one that I will leave for the experts.
The one thing that I believe points to the larger canon AND coincidentally is based on an oft-used quote by protestants in support of SS is from St Paul who says, “ALL Scripture is God breathed…” and since, as you say above, Paul was in the Diaspora, writing to Timothy, a Bishop in the Diaspora, It seems very likely that Paul was refering to the OT used in the Diaspora - which would have been the LXX…

Peace
James

Perhaps…aw you said…one left for historians…I have no doubt Paul used the LXX since he was writing in Greek…not Hebrew…I seriously doubt…but would be open to correction…that “orthodox” Palestinian Temple Jews in synagougs located “in the shadow of the Temple” would have used the LXX…certainly the scriptures used within the Temple would have been Hebrew…not Greek.

I have no doubt Paul used the LXX…it is with serious doubt that Jesus or the original apostles used it…being Judean/Galliean Temple Jews. Jesus didn’t teach the crowds in Greek…he taught them in Aramaic…spoke Aramaic from the cross…I have no doubt the LXX was not used in his preaching when he quoted scripture…the Greek writers of the NT used the LXX is too not in question…but to claim “Jesus used the LXX because he quoted from it” as an apologetic tool…seems very suspect and dubious to me…but then…I am a “doubting Thomas” about so much.

 

[Hesychios]

The LXX was available to any community willing to pay for it.

It seems clear to us moderns that there was a significant Greek speaking population in Galilee, the chances of a set of LXX scrolls being in at least some of the synagogs at that time seems likely, if they had any wealthy patrons it could have been on the wish list.

For Judea I suppose this is far less likely.

Nazareth was near Sepphoris and Capernaum. I believe that Jesus knew enough Greek to make a living a mixed community, although he may not have needed to read it.

I found this interesting … “Capernaum was described in other sources as a seat of “minim” which means sectarians. Recently there have been excavations that have uncovered the 2-story synagogue. It was of a beautiful ornamented style cut in limestone, rather than the typical black basalt seen around the area, and was 65 feet long. The carved stone ornamentation depicted stylized plants, fruits, 5-pointed stars, geometric motifs, and even mythological figures. Their were also dedicatory inscriptions written in Aramaic and Greek.”

There were probably communities across the Mediterranean that had incomplete sets of the LXX, but some portions are hardly referred to at all in the liturgy anyway.

I think it unlikely that Jesus studied or prayed much with the LXX, or perhaps I should suggest he hardly ever encountered it, but the Gospel writers seem to have been quite familiar with it and the early Christian communities (at least the ones outside of Palestine) seem to have used only copies of the LXX, not using the Hebrew texts at all.