How did Orthodox Bibles come to have more books than Catholics Bibles?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Thomasbradley312
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
In all seriousness he’ll probably genuinely answer you question. His brother, also a priest in the Melkite Church, is the founder and executive director of the Institute of Catholic Culture. He has great talks and he and his brother have a Sunday Gospel reflection for both the Roman and Byzantine lectionaries.

Ps
Ask him about the Septuagint and his talk on Biblical apologetics for the Institute.

ZP
 
BTW, another Catholic source that declares the Pharisaic OT canon included the same books found in the Protestant OTs (ie: “the Law, the Prophets, & the Writings”) is St. Mary’s Catholic Center at Texas A&M by a man named “Marcel” who is the Executive Director of Catholic Missionary Disciples. In his blog, he makes a distinction between the Pharisaic canon vs the Septuagint “believed” by Catholics which includes the Deuterocanon:

In the time of Jesus there were several different groups of Jews with different lists of their Scriptures:
  1. The Samaritans and Sadducees accepted the law but rejected the prophets and writings.
  2. The Pharisees accepted all three.
  3. Some Jews used the Greek version called the Septuagint. This is the list that the Catholic Church uses.
Why Catholic Bibles Have More Books Than Protestant Bibles
 
RaisedCatholic said:
what happened to the state of canonized saints who died rejecting the canon of Trent, who pronounced “anathema” on them,
Click to expand...
Please give me a name of a canonized Catholic saint who after the Council of Trent and the canonization of Scripture, stood out and vocally rejected the Council’s decision on the OT, was anathematized and canonized a saint both.
sainteriksrose said:
As Catholics, we KNOW that Jesus authorized the Church HE founded to bind & loose on His behalf. And although we ALSO know that His very human Apostles rarely understood what He was talking about, His Church has been doing EXACTLY that which He commanded it to do, since that first Pentecost in the Upper Room
Click to expand...
Yes, exactly.
RaisedCatholic said:
I have been able to confirm from other Catholic sources, beside Catholic Answers & Jimmy Akin, that the Pharisaic canon was the same as that of later Protestants.
Click to expand...
Again, the Catholic church has always known that Martin Luther chose to return to the Hebrew canon of the OT rather than the Greek Septuagint which Christians had been using for 1500 years.
I heard that many years ago. Mr. Akin is just stating something that has been known. He is not supporting protestantism or the protestant notion that the Catholic OT canon is wrong, as is evidenced by Jimmy Akin’s blogs and videos.
RaisedCatholic said:
not all “scholars” agree - even on what books the Pharisees accepted -
Click to expand...
And yes again, it doesn’t matter that all biblical scholars do not agree, it is what the Catholic church, led by the Holy Spirit says. It is what is given to us by the Church infallibly that matters and at the Council of Trent, and there they did agree.
RaisedCatholic said:
Even though Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, Catholics, and other groups don’t agree on the same OT canon, they are all pretty consistent that the Pharisaic canon was limited to the Hebrew Bible.
Click to expand...
Again, that is a known. The Church has known that for a very long time. That is why they canonized the OT at the Council of Trent due to the protestant heresy of sola Scriptura. It is what the NT Catholic Church led by the Holy Spirit says is the OT canon to be used in the NT church that matters. Jesus clearly stated he was taking the kingdom away from the Jewish people at that time and giving it to someone else and that someone else is the Catholic church. The Pharisees are not the ones who would decide the books of the OT used in the NT Church.
RaisedCatholic said:
I just might. Thanks for the offer.
Click to expand...
That is a very good idea. Otherwise it seems like these posts are an the attack of the Catholic church and it’s OT canon through the choir and the choir has done their best to answer your questions…
You might also consider emailing Jimmy Akin and let him clarify for you what he is saying.

This thread has gone off topic and should be closed.
 
Last edited:
MagdalenaRita said:
Please give me a name of a canonized Catholic saint who after the Council of Trent and the canonization of Scripture, stood out and vocally rejected the Council’s decision on the OT, was anathematized and canonized a saint both.
Click to expand...
Considering “saints” are generally “canonized” after they die (but not all), why would they be anathematized on earth for their rejection and then canonized? My question was if someone who is later canonized as a saint after they died, but when they were alive rejected the Biblical canon of Trent, why are they not anathematized while other Catholics who also reject it are anathematized? I think you may have misunderstood my question.
MagdalenaRita said:
Again, the Catholic church has always known that Martin Luther chose to return to the Hebrew canon of the OT rather than the Greek Septuagint which Christians had been using for 1500 years.
Click to expand...
Again, Luther recognized the NT & the first century Christians utilized the Septuagint, but that doesn’t mean he rejected it. If anything his study of the Targums, prior to & contemporary with the first century, demonstrated that it included the books in the Hebrew Bible but not the Deuterocanon too. He, like later Protestants, realized that Septuagint in Jesus’ day did not include the Deuterocanon, but only the books in the Hebrew Bible. Trent Horn from Catholic Answers affirms the “first canon” to be translated into the Greek (the Septuagint) was the Hebrew Bible, not the Deuterocanon:

“[The Septuagint] is the Bible that Jesus and the apostles used… It comes from the story that King Ptolemy II of Egypt, he had asked for the Hebrew Bible for the Old Testament to be translated into Greek to be put into the library of Alexandria.” (begins around the 7:35 mark)

Trent Horn (audio podcast): “Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger”

Luther’s German translation of the Old Testament was based on the Hebrew, not the Latin like other German translations, because he wanted a more direct & accurate Hebrew-to-German translation, which is why he didn’t translate from the Septuagint which was Greek. It had nothing to do with Luther “rejecting the Septuagint.” If anything, he included the Deuterocanon, just in a separate uninspired addendum in-between the Old & New Testaments.

[cont]
 
[cont]
MagdalenaRita said:
It is what is given to us by the Church infallibly that matters and at the Council of Trent, and there they did agree.
Click to expand...
Okay, let’s assume this is true. Since you have said earlier that Trent merely “reaffirmed” what the Catholic Church has “always believed & taught” when it “defined” the canon, then “when” did it first “affirm” the canon? I am asking & looking for a particular date. That is why I bring up Western Latin ECFs & canonized saints, like St. Irenaeus in the second century, since his OT “list” was not the same as Trent’s. Neither was the fourth & fifth century church councils. So, whenever it was “affirmed,” did it happen later than this? And if so, “when”? I would really like to know. 🙂
MagdalenaRita said:
Raised Catholic: Even though Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, Catholics, and other groups don’t agree on the same OT canon, they are all pretty consistent that the Pharisaic canon was limited to the Hebrew Bible.
Click to expand...
Yet, other Catholics like @ziapueblo disagrees with the Catholic Church, based a single priest teaching at a Catholic seminary. So, do you know if the Catholic Church teach the Pharisaic canon is the same as the later Protestant OT canon & Jimmy Akin is right, or is this rogue priest who disagrees right? From what I have studied, Mr. Akin does appear to be right on this issue.
MagdalenaRita said:
the choir has done their best to answer your questions…This thread has gone off topic and should be closed.
Click to expand...
Agreed that this has gone off topic & will be closed today. And just to clarify, no one is “attacking” the Catholic Church or its OT canon. Just asking questions & responding to specific questions from a Protestant POV. Nothing more.

The OP asked why Orthodox Bibles have more books than Catholic Bibles. The answer - in part - is that like the Catholic Church, the Orthodox based their canon on the Septuagint. And like the Catholic Church, they used a version of the Septuagint that had “added” books to it after the first century, which is why they are “bigger.” If you were to ask a Protestant, they would say the same thing about the Deuterocanon - that is was “added” to the Septuagint later. The evidence they give from the NT is it never utilizes one of its 300 metonyms (“It is written” etc) to describe any of the books in the Deuterocanon as an OT book.

While “the choir” has been very generous in explaining the Catholic Church has “always” believed & taught what the OT canon was, the unanswered question is - specifically - “when” they first taught it.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
ziapueblo said:
Ask him (Fr. Sebastian Carnazzo) about the Septuagint and his talk on Biblical apologetics for the Institute.
Click to expand...
MagdalenaRita said:
And yes again, it doesn’t matter that all biblical scholars do not agree, it is what the Catholic church, led by the Holy Spirit says.
Click to expand...
I received an email reply back from Fr. Sebastian Carnazzo regarding the canon of the Pharisees. This is his response - in part - about Jimmy Akin’s understanding of it:

"He [Akin] is confusing the Pharisees of the 1st century with the later rabbinic writers and the canon post Jamnia… All one has to do is take a look at the table of Contents of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus to get a sense of the state of affairs at that time…This shows that they were part of the reading cycle in that era in the regions where these lectionaries/bibles were used. The fact that they each contain other books shows that those books were also in the lectionary cycle of those regions at that time.”

While I respect his reasoning, we all know that the canon lists from Sinaiticus & Vaticanus not only is not identical with the list at the Councils of Florence & Trent (let alone the earlier Councils of Rome, Hippo, & Carthage), they also include books not found in Catholic OTs. Plus, these codices are from the FOURTH century, which doesn’t necessarily reveal what was in the Septuagint in the first century. He also seems to be advocating books Catholics and Protestants agree are “Apocrypha” like 3 and 4 Maccabees, are part of the Bible since they were in either Sinaiticus and/ Vaticanus too, which I highly disagree.

With all due respect for Fr. Carnazzo, and from other Catholic sources (like Texas A&M & others) I believe Jimmy Akin is correct, and that Fr. Carnazzo is the one who is “confused.” It seems Fr. Carnazzo believes that “post-Jamnia” Rabbinic Judaism were the first to espouse to the Hebrew Bible, and that the Pharisees (and the Septuagint) included the Deuterocanon, based on Fr. Carnazzo extrapolating the TOC from Sinaiticus & Vaticanus (which were not identical) back into the “pre-Jamnia” first century Pharisees’ canon. However, this appears more to be an assumption on Fr. Carnazzo’s part, than on actual history.
 
Last edited:
RaisedCatholic said:
My question was if someone who is later canonized as a saint after they died, but when they were alive rejected the Biblical canon of Trent, why are they not anathematized while other Catholics who also reject it are anathematized?
Click to expand...
So, I think you would need to be more specific of who you are thinking of, as I do not know of any canonized saint, who spoke out against the canonization of Scripture after Trent.
RaisedCatholic said:
“when” did it first “affirm” the canon? I am asking & looking for a particular date…

I would really like to know.
Click to expand...
I think this has pretty much been answered but since neither one of us are Biblical scholars or have a doctor in theology, I will link answers from those who do have Phd’s.

Both converts to the Catholic church:

Dr. Scott Hahn:


Dr. Taylor Marshall:



You also received answers from a very, very well educated Catholic priest, Fr. Sebastian Carnazzo. I would say he is doing more than making assumptions. I would definitely lean toward believing him.

And one more link. A short but pretty good timeline of the canonization of Scripture.

https://www.catholicbridge.com/catholic/timeline-of-how-the-bible-came.php

God bless and I think it looks like the above linked people can answers your questions just pretty good.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top