How come the Orthodox get to have more books in their Bibles?

[mardukm]

(CONTINUED)

If we don’t assume that St. Athanasius DIDN"T mean the Septuagint for Daniel(or Theodotion, the LXX was so bad that Christians adopted Theodotion instead, even in Alexandria as Origen attests, and it was the one adopted by the Orthodox), for example, then the “additions” of Susanna, Bel and the Song of the Three Children were not included, putting further distance between his canon and the Latin Church’s as defined by Trent, and closer to the Orthodox.

Whoever stated St. Athanasius DIDN’T mean the Septuagint for Daniel? Certainly not me. I stated he did not accept ALL the books. I did not say he did not accept portions of books. If he accepted a book, he would naturally have accepted the entirety of its version in the Septuagint, correct? And he did include Daniel in his list, correct?

take another look

I have looked many times throughout my life, which is why I affirm what I have already stated.

The relevance, as seen above, is both Orthodox and Latin accept Maccabbees, but Athanasius doesn’t (or doesn’t name them),

I still don’t know what the relevance of this is to my assertion that the Coptic Canon is closer to the Latin Canon than the Greek Canon.

but the Orthodox (Greek, Arab and Copt) share with Athanasius, against the Latin church, the priority of the Septuagint over the Hebrew. (and in liturgy, evern the Latin church had to agree with Athanasius and the Orthodox on this).

This is the anti-Latin canard I have spoken of. Just because Jerome used the original Hebrew to translate the Vulgate does not mean the Latin Church prioritized the Hebrew over the Septuagint. I guess you are not aware that St. Jerome used BOTH the Hebrew and the Septuagint to form the Vulgate? I guess you didn’t know that while Jerome used the Hebrew to correct the Septuagint in some places, he also used the Septuagint to correct the Hebrew in other places, and all this without claiming that one was better over the other. I urge you to read Jerome a little more than what the polemicists are offering you.:byzsoc:

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Dear brother Isa,

Don’t have too much. I can, however, appeal to the decision of Pope Cyril V to truncate the Coptic Orthodox Canon (due to Protestant influence) - the books removed were identical to the books contained in the Catholic Canon. IOW, it did not include the extra books of Ezra, Psalms 151, etc.
At the beginning of the 20th century, the question of the canon was discussed again in the Coptic Church, and by order of Cyril V, the 112th Patriarch, the following books were removed from the canon: Tobit, Judith, the complement of Esther, the Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, the Epistle of Jeremiah, Baruch, the Complement to Daniel (Susanna and the three youths in the fire), and the Books of Maccabees. Otto Meinardus, Two Thousand Years of Coptic Christianity (AUC Press, 1965), page 41
I hope that is enough proof for you.

Unfortunatlely, not quite. I was hoping for something in the line of Trent or Jerusalem (I’m not sure such a thing exists, but I thought you might know something).

On, for instance, the difference you point out, e.g. Ps. 151:
st-takla.org/Bibles/Holy-Bible.html
has a good Orthodox explanation on this issue, the Arabic explanation (which unfortunately most reading this won’t be able to read, but you I believe can) even explicitely saying that St. Athanasius witnessed to it, gives the Orthodox explanation to it (“like Christ slaying Satan”), statest the Coptic translation have it, and gives the Coptic liturgical use of it (I do recall seeing it in a Coptic, meaning having Coptic, Psalter, and in a Coptic manuscript). The English explanation just states it was found in the Dead Sea Scrolls and was in the great manuscripts (Alexandrinus, Sinaiticus) from Egypt.

Pope Cyril, I think we agree, was mistaken in this (odd, we had an EP Cyril who also caused Protestant problems). He was, however, not thorough: the Deuterocanonicals are still found in the liturgics, and THAT, by the way is what determined the canon: what did the Church use at worship.

Btw, St. Thekla only mentions two books of Maccabees. Many Orthodox Bibles (and I have many in different languages) have III and IV, but many don’t (e.g. the Old Romanian does, the New doesn’t).

Btw, thanks for posting Mendarius. I hope more we read him.

cont…

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Dear brother Isa,

I’m not sure what what this has to do with our conversation. Nor do I understand the relevance of the different canons you quoted in response to the excerpt from me to which you were responding, though I am sure many will appreciate your posting of such a good history of the development of the Canon.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

(CONTINUED)

Whoever stated St. Athanasius DIDN’T mean the Septuagint for Daniel? Certainly not me. I stated he did not accept ALL the books. I did not say he did not accept portions of books. If he accepted a book, he would naturally have accepted the entirety of its version in the Septuagint, correct? And he did include Daniel in his list, correct?

I was just pointing out the only other alternative (I would have to check quotes of St. Athanisius to see which he used, because the Church used both, with a preference for Theodotion).

In either case, when he said Daniel, we assume with good authority he meant the one with the additions that Cyril didn’t like and Jerome first separated.

I still don’t know what the relevance of this is to my assertion that the Coptic Canon is closer to the Latin Canon than the Greek Canon.

The Orthodox can explain why Athanasius didn’t list Maccabbees, whereas the Latin can’t (a problem when Protestants jump on it).

This is the anti-Latin canard I have spoken of. Just because Jerome used the original Hebrew to translate the Vulgate does not mean the Latin Church prioritized the Hebrew over the Septuagint. I guess you are not aware that St. Jerome used BOTH the Hebrew and the Septuagint to form the Vulgate? I guess you didn’t know that while Jerome used the Hebrew to correct the Septuagint in some places, he also used the Septuagint to correct the Hebrew in other places, and all this without claiming that one was better over the other. I urge you to read Jerome a little more than what the polemicists are offering you.:byzsoc:

Most of what I get on Jerome is from his admirers, like my priest.

I know his Psalms, based on the Hebrew, got nowhere even in the Latin Church. The one he did on the Septuagint is the basis of what was used today, until a Protestant spirit of V II produced the Nova Vulgata.

 

[peary]

Hi

I don’t agree with you and repeat my points now numbered:

1. I think that is not a correct interpretation, as that would mean
2. that either every book of OTBible or NTBible should have had similar verses for protection and security
3. or that the writer of the Revelation knew as to what was possibly being done to other books, so he added such a verse as a witness.
4. If other book were secure and protected then he had no need to add these verses.

My opinion is that it is for the whole Bible, as these verses are often offered by our Christian friends for this purpose.

The books here mean the text of the scriptures, though these were bound in the book form later.

Please clear the above points. I respect you religion.

Thanks

It is irrelevant as to whether you disagree with me or not LOL THERE WAS NO CANON OF SCRIPTURE CALLED THE NEW TESTAMENT WHEN JOHN WROTE REVELATION. THAT IS FACT. In fact, there were scattered writings throughout the Mediterranean area among the various Christian commun

 

[peary]

communities, but there wasn’t a ‘bible’. The new testament is the memoirs of the early Church. the Church existed prior to its own Scriptures.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Isa,

I almost missed responding to this, my focus being on our immediate topic. But a little bird reminded me.

…[btw] For the Holy Spirit is not of the Father only or of the Son only, but of the Father and the Son; for it is written: ‘He who delights in the world, the Spirit of the Father is not in him’; again it is written; ‘However anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ, does not belong to him’. So the Holy Spirit is understood to be called of the Father and the Son, [and] of whom the Son himself in the gospel says that the Holy Spirit ‘proceeds from the Father’ and ‘he will receive from me and he will make known to you’. [no need of filioque]]

I just thought I would highlight the relevant parts of the text, in case you missed them.

Indeed, as you say, filioque was not necessary for the East, because the belief that the Son had a part in the Procession was not disputed by the East. Don’t forget that the Creed was a codification of DISPUTED points of belief.

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S. If you want to discuss this further, maybe you can start a thread in the Eastern Catholicism forum entitled “Eastern Fathers and filioque” where we can give our respective supporting evidence for whether or not the East believed that the Son had a role in the Procession, and whether it was merely energetic/economical or ontological.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Isa,

I will respond to your posts 43 and 44 by this weekend.

Abundant blessings,
Marduk

 

[paarsurrey]

The new testament is the memoirs of the early Church. the Church existed prior to its own Scriptures.

Hi

I agree with you.

NTBible is memoirs written about life accounts of Jesus, so, in my opinion it is not necessarily inspired or revealed by GodAllahYHWH. It is good as a book of history.

Thanks

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Dear brother Isa,

I almost missed responding to this, my focus being on our immediate topic. But a little bird reminded me.

I just thought I would highlight the relevant parts of the text, in case you missed them.

And the decree seemed to miss how they necessitate the need of filioque.

Indeed, as you say, filioque was not necessary for the East, because the belief that the Son had a part in the Procession was not disputed by the East. Don’t forget that the Creed was a codification of DISPUTED points of belief.

And since the ECF didn’t believe it, no dispute.

If you want to discuss this further, maybe you can start a thread in the Eastern Catholicism forum entitled “Eastern Fathers and filioque” where we can give our respective supporting evidence for whether or not the East believed that the Son had a role in the Procession, and whether it was merely energetic/economical or ontological.

According to the rules there I can’t discuss Catholic ideas there. Orthodox Catholic ideas. Btw, I would say perichoresis.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Dear brother Isa,

I will respond to your posts 43 and 44 by this weekend.

Abundant blessings,
Marduk

No rush, I understand that as important as this is to the two of us, and much to the astonishment perhaps of lurkers, I assume that you, like I, have other lives.

I’m innundated myself right now too.

 

[peary]

Hi

I agree with you.

NTBible is memoirs written about life accounts of Jesus, so, in my opinion it is not necessarily inspired or revealed by GodAllahYHWH. It is good as a book of history.

Thanks

But the accounts came from THE CHURCH and its ORAL TRADITION. And since the CHURCH (body of believers) existed prior to its Sacred Scriptures, the Scriptures themselves are both inspired and the revealed Word of God.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

And the decree seemed to miss how they necessitate the need of filioque.

And since the ECF didn’t believe it, no dispute.

According to the rules there I can’t discuss Catholic ideas there. Orthodox Catholic ideas. Btw, I would say perichoresis.

On a similar note:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=3054878#post3054878

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Isa,

And the decree seemed to miss how they necessitate the need of filioque.

And since the ECF didn’t believe it, no dispute.

According to the rules there I can’t discuss Catholic ideas there. Orthodox Catholic ideas. Btw, I would say perichoresis.

I guess I’ll have to school you on the teachings of the Eastern/Oriental Fathers on the matter. But it will have to wait until the weekend. And I will do it in another thread.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Atemi]

How come the Orthodox get to have more books in their Bibles?

How can that be?

I thought the canon was settled way back before the Schism at Rome, Carthage, and Hippo.

Did the Orthodox never get that memo?

…

 

[mardukm]

How can that be?

I thought the canon was settled way back before the Schism at Rome, Carthage, and Hippo.

Did the Orthodox never get that memo?

…

Those were LOCAL Councils.

The Sixth and Seventh Ecumenical Councils ratified several Scriptural canons.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Atemi]

Those were LOCAL Councils.

Catholics tell me almost daily that those COuncils officially settles the canon in the Church.

Now they are merely local.

The Sixth and Seventh Ecumenical Councils ratified several Scriptural canons.

This just extends the question, I guess.

How is it that the Orthodox have a different canon than Rome if they all got the memos from these Councils?

…

 

[paarsurrey]

But the accounts came from THE CHURCH and its ORAL TRADITION. And since the CHURCH (body of believers) existed prior to its Sacred Scriptures, the Scriptures themselves are both inspired and the revealed Word of God.

Hi

I think, your conclusions are not necessarily very logical. Do you think if the order of the scriptures, the believers with different thoughts, and the unsystematic tradition would have not been the same as you have put them, the reliability would have varied? or Do you think it is the order narrated by you whic has only made it inspired or if the same would be changed it would not be inspired or revealed?

I respect your religion.

Thanks

 

[EphelDuath]

How is it that the Orthodox have a different canon than Rome if they all got the memos from these Councils?

They changed their canon at the Synod of Jerusalem.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

They changed their canon at the Synod of Jerusalem.

Oh? What change would that be?

Sounds like the charge that the Latins changed their canon at Trent.

In both cases the problem being addressed was the denial of the Protestants of the deuterocanonicals, which had been affirmed by the ECF. The Synod only affirmed this.