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

[RaisedCatholic]

It appears as though most of your arguments are from the point of view that since everyone did not agree on the canonization of Scripture…what the protestant churches believe must be correct, since there were some Catholics who possibly had the same point of view at one time.

No, the purpose of pointing out not all canonized saints & Doctors of the Church, and other ECFs, were not “universal” in their OT canons, was to point out that Protestants stress the canon was not “defined” universally until Trent, which is nearly FIFTEEN CENTURIES after the Biblical canon was completed. Considering Trent pronounced “anathema” on anyone who rejected this much later established canon, this would include these same ECFs - as well as those after the Reformation began (like Cardinals Cajetan & Ximenes, and Erasmus) - who would be also be anathematized, including saints who are prayed in Purgatory by Catholics.

it doesn’t change that the Catholic Church alone, assisted by the Holy Spirit, the author of inspired books, has the right and power to decide which books do or do not belong to Holy Scripture.

But the Protestant would ask “when” did the Catholic Church “decide” which books belong in Scripture? It wasn’t during the fourth & fifth century church councils, since their “lists” not only disagreed with each other, but also disagreed with the later Ecumenical Councils of Florence & Trent. And even the Second Ecumenical Council of Nicaea II (787) produced a different list than that of Florence & Trent did almost a millennia later. The Protestant would question whether FIFTEEN CENTURIES is rather late to “define” the canon, don’t you think?

The reason I added all of what Jimmy Akin said, was to be sure we are not taking comments out of context but even if he completely agreed with you and followed the protestant canon…

Just so I am not misrepresenting Mr. Akin, I did not say he “agreed” with the Protestant canon. In the video, he was arguing for the Catholic OT canon. Rather, by him saying Protestants & Pharisees espoused to the exact same OT writings, he may not have realized - indirectly - he was supporting the Protestant OT canon. Protestants understand Jesus was acknowledging the Pharisaic OT canon, when He said “They [the Pharisees] have [possession of] Moses & the Prophets [the OT canon]” (Luke 16:29). Since Mr. Akin stated the Pharisaic canon had the same books as later Protestants, unknowingly, Protestants understand Mr. Akin was affirming the OT canon, based on their understanding of Jesus’ acknowledgement of the Pharisaic canon in Luke 16.

If you could speak to them today they would say to stay faithful to God’s Holy Church lest you put your eternal soul in danger.

But since these canonized saints are dead, and since even the Catholic Church admits their eternal fate is sealed after death, are they in Heaven or Hell?

 

[RaisedCatholic]

The same Pharisees who wanted to put Christ to death? They are the ones we are supposed to trust and not the Church Christ founded?

While Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for their unbelief, He never rebuked them for their canon. Don’t conflate these two unrelated issues. If anything, from the Protestant view, Jesus affirmed their OT canon (Luke 16:14-16,29). That is what made their rejection of Jesus so heinous. It is BECAUSE they possessed the complete OT canon, they rejected Him as their Messiah since they had created a false “messiah,” based on their extra-biblical religious “traditions,” which would not have happened if they had gone strictly by Scripture like the disciples, such as Philip, did.

The opposite happens in some Protestant groups liturgy where they read from the “Apocrypha” in worship even though they don’t view it as inspired such as Anglicans, Lutherans, and Methodists. The 39 Articles of Religion in Anglicanism states it this way.

Yeah, but in your example, the uninspired writings in their liturgy are the same books they consider to be inspired and canonical. This is different from the Eastern Orthodox who state a book can be inspired but not canonical, which is different from the NT, which considers such a book to be both.

 

[Thomasbradley312]

This is different from the Eastern Orthodox who state a book can be inspired but not canonical, which is different from the NT, which considers such a book to be both.

That’s because your view of it is based on western interpretation or post Protestantism.
Most of Church history this wasn’t an issue. If the Church was wrong about the Canon of the Old Testament then I don’t even know if it was correct about the New Testament. The same argument you make about early Fathers not agreeing about the Canon is exactly the same for the New Testament. The Development of the Canon of the New Testament - Cross Reference Table: Writings and Authorities

 

[Thomasbradley312]

If you want a book to read on this by an actual scholar who is unbiased, I recommend The Canon of Scripture by Bruce Metzger. It goes through the Old and New Testaments developments and other fascinating stuff.

I read a lot of the Catholic Answers stuff and books and its good stuff. But on the biblical canon I’m disappointed in the apologists from this site. They give their argument on the deuterocanonical books, they defend it always against Protestants and how they say they removed books. We get it. I’m actually these days more interested in the difference between Catholic and Orthodox Bibles and why Orthodox have more books than Catholics. Like you talk about Protestants having less books than Catholics and they have all these different resources and reasons, you ask why Catholics have less than the Orthodox and the answer is just like, because the Church said so. Well apparently not since these Churches all can claim to go back to the Apostles, so if it said so when they were still all in communion and they have different canons, that is an issue.( OO were in communion until 451, EO until 1054). EO and OO all have larger canons. The Ethiopian Orthodox Tawahedo Church which has the largest canon in Christianity is part of the OO. 81 books they have. I mean maybe in America Orthodoxy isn’t all to present, but the fact is, the four largest communions in the world are; Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican Communion, and Oriental Orthodox. Protestantism is second after Catholicism in terms of numbers of people in groups who are regarded as such but the truth is Protestantism is totally diverse and is in no way to be viewed as a unified body. In fact some Protestants have more in common with Catholics than they do with other Protestants. So anyways back to the issue of Orthodox having more books, I wish more was given to that because honestly that the ancient Chruches(RC,EO,OO) don’t have the same Canon of scripture bothers me a lot more than Protestants not having the same canon.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

Protestants stress the canon was not “defined” universally until Trent, which is nearly FIFTEEN CENTURIES after the Biblical canon was completed.

During the deliberations of the Council there never was any real question as to the reception of all the traditional Scripture. Neither–and this is remarkable–in the proceedings is there manifest any serious of the canonicity of the disputed writings. In the mind of the Fathers they had been virtually canonized, by the same decree of Florence, and the same Fathers felt especially bound by the action of the preceding ecumenical synod. The Council of
Trent did not enter into an examination of the fluctuations in the history of the Canon. Neither did it trouble itself about questions of authorship or character of contents. True to the practical genius of the Latin Church, it based its decision on immemorial tradition as manifested in the decrees of previous councils and popes and liturgical reading, relying on traditional teaching and usage to determine a question of tradition.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm

Considering Trent pronounced “anathema” on anyone who rejected this much later established canon, this would include these same ECFs - as well as those after the Reformation began (like Cardinals Cajetan & Ximenes, and Erasmus) - who would be also be anathematized, including saints who are prayed in Purgatory by Catholics.

That is a misunderstanding of anathema. For one thing if it wasn’t canonized yet, it wasn’t law. We can’t say any of those ECF or anyone in purgatory would be anathemitized because to be anathema it would need to be a mortal sin and it is not a mortal sin, one, if it is not a law yet and two if you do not know it is law. Those who died before it was canonized would not have any way of knowing it was law and can’t sin against something not yet defined.
As I said that is a misunderstanding of the word.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm

“Let him be Anathema”: Not what many Protestants think it means | The Lonely Pilgrim

The Protestant would question whether FIFTEEN CENTURIES is rather late to “define” the canon, don’t you think?

No, because the reason, as someone else stated, it was canonized at that time due to protestants questioning the OT canon used by both the Catholic and EO churches and claiming Scripture alone as final authority that caused the Church to define the canon. That is usually what happened in most councils, a need to define something. Never before had Christians believed in Scripture alone. Not even the Eastern Churches, as least according to my undertanding and perhaps where I read this could be where the other poster got some of his information. It is a very interesting read on the Eastern Churches view of Scripture and OT Canon.

http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/45746/what bible do eastern catholic

cont.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

he may not have realized - indirectly - he was supporting the Protestant OT canon.

He was just stating a fact. He wasn’t the first to understand this.The Church has always known that protestants used the Hebrew OT canon.

Since Mr. Akin stated the Pharisaic canon had the same books as later Protestants, unknowingly, Protestants understand Mr. Akin was affirming the OT canon, based on their understanding of Jesus’ acknowledgement of the Pharisaic canon in Luke 16.

He was only affirming that protestants use the Hebrew canon, but he was not affirming that Jesus was affirming that the New Testament Christians are to use that same OT canon. That is what can not be determined from Luke 16…

But since these canonized saints are dead, and since even the Catholic Church admits their eternal fate is sealed after death, are they in Heaven or Hell?

So, I am not sure of the reason for that question, but if someone is a saint they are in heaven.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Neither–and this is remarkable–in the proceedings is there manifest any serious of the canonicity of the disputed writings.

Yet, according to EWTN: “It [Sirach] is not in the canonical list of Melito of Sardes (c.280AD) or Origen (321.AD) of the Council of Laodicea (360AD)…doubts about its canonicity lasted into the Middle Ages, especially under the influence of St. Jerome, who preferred the Palestinian Canon, such doubts lasted even after the Council of Florence (1441) which included it in the list of sacred books without denying its canonicity. It’s canonicity was finally defined at the Council of Trent.” (source: EWTN: Deuterocanonical Books in Canon of Scripture, by Fr. William Most

So, while it’s canonicity was not “denied” at Florence, books like Sirach were still in question into the Middle Ages. What the Protestant would ask is “when” exactly was said “tradition” first recognized the Biblical canon - as a whole - as the exact same books as Florence & Trent? That is why Protestants bring up the different “lists” up through the Middle Ages, because there doesn’t seem to be an early “set date” where there is said “list” which is consistent. Perhaps you could provide a particular date, council, etc.?

That is a misunderstanding of anathema. For one thing if it wasn’t canonized yet, it wasn’t law…if it is not a law yet and two if you do not know it is law. Those who died before it was canonized would not have any way of knowing it was law and can’t sin against something not yet defined.

So, those ECFs, Doctors of the Church, & canonized saints who shared the exact same OT canon as later Catholics were not anathematized because they weren’t born before the “official” anathematization at Trent, because they weren’t aware of it? Then does that mean a Catholic could believe whatever the canon was up to that point at Trent & not be anathematized, which would include Luther & the Reformers? And what about Cardinals Cajetan & Ximenes, & Erasmus, who were around after the Reformation began, who shared Luther’s canon? Were they anathematized too?

[cont]

 

[RaisedCatholic]

[cont]

that is a misunderstanding of the word.

According to the New Catholic Version, which was approved by the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, “anathema” in Galatians 1:8-9 is defined as “cursed, excluded from the kingdom of God.” It has a similar meaning in the Strong’s Exhaustive Greek Concordance, “bind under a great curse; devoted to the direst of woes; without hope of being redeemed.” The apostle Paul uses the term when he wrote: “For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren” (Romans 9:3).

So, if “accursed” does not mean “damned” (excluded from the kingdom of God, without hope of being redeemed), then is Paul saying someone like Luther, who preached a “different gospel” from Rome (sola fide) & produced a different Biblical canon is “anathema” but in Heaven?

He [Akin] was just stating a fact. He wasn’t the first to understand this.The Church has always known that protestants used the Hebrew OT canon.

But wasn’t Akin’s “fact” he declared was Protestants & Pharisees shared the same canon? This would mean Paul, as a Pharisee, shared this same canon as later Protestants? So, it’s not so much that Protestants “used the Hebrew OT canon,” but the earlier canon shared by the Pharisees (of which Paul was one) which Mr. Akin stated was the same as later Protestants?

So, I am not sure of the reason for that question, but if someone is a saint they are in heaven.

What I was asking is if Luther was anathematized because he rejected the Biblical canon at Trent, then wouldn’t the same be true of canonized saints prior to & contemporary with Trent (like St. Pope Gregory the Great, St. Irenaeus, etc.)? And if they are in Heaven since they are “saints” then what effect would them being “anathematized” since they rejected that same Biblical canon at Trent that Luther & the Reformers rejected centuries later?

These are the questions Protestants wonder about when it comes to anathematizing, in regards to past canonized saints prior to & contemporary with Trent, who rejected the same Biblical canon as Trent.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

That’s because your view of it is based on western interpretation or post Protestantism…If the Church was wrong about the Canon of the Old Testament then I don’t even know if it was correct about the New Testament.

From what I’ve read, Luther & the Reformers recognized the OT canon that was later translated into the Targums (Aramaic paraphrases of the Hebrew Bible), which included the books in the Hebrew Bible, but excluded the Deuterocanon, and books both Catholics AND Protestants agree are “apocrypha.” They also believed a book was both inspired AND canonical, since Paul stated “All Scripture is inspired.” So how could a book be inspired, but not part of the Biblical canon too? I believe this is where Catholics & Protestants agree with each other, but disagree with the Orthodox. Is this true @MagdalenaRita?

I’m actually these days more interested in the difference between Catholic and Orthodox Bibles and why Orthodox have more books than Catholics.

May I humbly recommend, “Why Protestant Bibles Are Smaller”? It is on Amazon, and it has an entire chapter on the Eastern Orthodox Bible, and why it is “bigger” than both Catholic & Protestant Bibles. It also discusses “bigger” Bibles, like Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo, & why the “extra books” in their Bibles, while canonical according to that particular church body, are not inspired, or God-breathed. It also has an entire chapter on why we can trust the 27 book NT canon without having to rely on - as you said in your own words - because “they said so.”

 

[sainteriksrose]

Haven’t read all of these posts, but this is a very interesting discussion…

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

Not being a scholar/historian, my questions are: Didn’t the Holy Spirit declare the canon of the LEGITIMATE Christian Holy Bible to be closed in the 3rd century? And, didn’t the Jews determine the canon of their Bible at roughly the same time, because Christ’s Birth threw a monkey wrench into the works of what and who they believed their Messiah was going to be and what they believed He was going to do FOR them? Meaning, an EARTHLY/wealthy king, who would champion them from without, while they were not INWARDLY worthy to get into Heaven due to them as a whole, having missed His point entirely and okaying His brutal murder that the pagan Romans carried out? Thus of course, saving our gentile posteriors as well? (Romans 11)

 

[MagdalenaRita]

With all charity to RaisedCatholic the book he is promoting and encouraging Catholics to read is not based on Catholic understanding or Church teaching but a protestant view.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

That is why Protestants bring up the different “lists” up through the Middle Ages, because there doesn’t seem to be an early “set date” where there is said “list” which is consistent.

I don’t know how to say this any different, as it has been answered through the thread already, but the Church was given the power to define the Canon, they had criteria they followed and part of that was liturgical use and Tradition. Because one book may still have been in question doesn’t change anything.
The Church canonized Scripture at Trent because of the protestant heresy of sola Scriptura. It’s done. It’s finalized.
If the Church finalized the Canon yesterday it would still be the same answer. The Church alone was given the authority to make the decision. We trust God.

So, if “accursed” does not mean “damned”

As explained in links I provided, and you have to go by Church teaching, not personal interpretations of scripture, one is excommunicated with the hope of returning.

Paul, as a Pharisee, shared this same canon as later Protestants?

Most Old Testament quotations in the New Testament are based on the Septuagint,not the Hebrew. Paul’s use of the Septuagint, is important, because as a student of Gamaliel, he would have had known very well the difference between the Greek and Hebrew texts, yet he used mostly the Septuagint.

“used the Hebrew OT canon,” but the earlier canon shared by the Pharisees (of which Paul was one) which Mr. Akin stated was the same as later Protestants?

It doesn’t mean that is the OT canon the NT Church was inspired by the Holy Spirit to use.

And if they are in Heaven since they are “saints” then what effect would them being “anathematized” since they rejected that same Biblical canon at Trent that Luther & the Reformers rejected centuries later?

You don’t anathematize some one who is heaven…

What I was asking is if Luther was anathematized because he rejected the Biblical canon at Trent

He did a lot more than just reject the Septuagint.

Luther, who preached a “different gospel” from Rome (sola fide) & produced a different Biblical canon is “anathema” but in Heaven?

As I said earlier, disagreeing about the OT canon is only a tiny part of the damage Luther did. I’m not God and can’t say where he is but according to some Catholic saints, he is not in heaven.

Some very good info on OT canon from an EO view.

http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/otcanon.aspx

 

[ziapueblo]

This would mean Paul, as a Pharisee, shared this same canon as later Protestants?

As a Pharisee Saint Paul would have used the Septuagint. What’s interesting is that in 2 Timothy Saint Paul writes that “all scripture is inspired by God . . . “ At this time in history the Jews were debating the scriptures of Israel. The Catholic/Orthodox Old Testament canon comes from the Pharisees. The Sadducees only believed that the Books of Moses, the Pentateuch, were inspired. Saint Paul was a Pharisee so it would make sense that he would say that “all scripture” is inspired because again, the Pharisees used the larger canon.

ZP

 

[RaisedCatholic]

The Catholic/Orthodox Old Testament canon comes from the Pharisees. Saint Paul was a Pharisee so it would make sense that he would say that “all scripture” is inspired because again, the Pharisees used the larger canon.

While the Pharisees did indeed use a “larger canon” than the Sadducees who only acknowledged the 5 books of Moses, senior Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin from Catholic Answers declared the Pharisaic canon was limited to the Hebrew Bible, which contain the same books as later Protestants. Mr. Akin’s quote begins around the 50 second mark:

Jimmy Akin, Catholic Answers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dF5NYPENhp4

With all due respect to Mr. Akin’s assumption the Septuagint included the Deuterocanon, originally, it was limited to the Pentateuch, not “the Prophets” & the rest of “the Writings,” and certainly not the Deuterocanon. All of these writings were added much later. So, since the Pharisees espoused to the same books in Protestant OTs is why Protestants believe the Septuagint used by the Pharisees in Jesus’ day included the books contained in the boundaries of the Hebrew Bible, but not the Deuterocanon.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

With all charity to RaisedCatholic the book he is promoting and encouraging Catholics to read is not based on Catholic understanding or Church teaching but a protestant view.

Genuine “thank you,” for your kind words of charity. I would like to extend back this same genuine charity, love, & respect towards you in pointing out nearly 60% of the citations are direct quotations from CATHOLIC resources, including the Vatican, EWTN, NewAdvent.org, & even Catholic Answers, as well as commentaries from Catholic Bibles. Another 40 are from Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Jewish, and other non-Protestant sources. So, the vast majority of the citations are from non-Protestant sources, leaving about 1/3 of them being “Protestant.” And many of these are from Greek lexicons & concordances, or comments like: “this verse is not in the earliest & most reliable copies,” and other things Catholics et al would agree on, but it is not counted as a “Catholic source.” While the book is not written by someone who is currently Catholic, I was simply answering @Thomasbradley312’s explicit desire to know why Eastern & Oriental Orthodox Bibles have more books in them than Catholic & Protestant Bibles, despite also utilizing the Septuagint. Also, the NT writers did not consistently use the Septuagint. The apostles Matthew & John occasionally deviated from it, using their own Greek translations which was more faithful to the Hebrew Bible.

I don’t know how to say this any different, as it has been answered through the thread already, but the Church was given the power to define the Canon

You are correct in saying you addressed that “the Church was given the power to define the Canon,” but what I was asking was “when” did they do that? Since the fourth & fifth century council “lists” not only contradicted the later “lists” at the Ecumenical Councils of Florence & Trent, but also contradicted each others’ “lists,” again, “when” did the Church give a definite “list” of inspired books identical to those “defined” at Trent? To say “the Church always knew,” even if that is indeed true, come across rather vague to a non-Catholic. I guess I am asking for specifics (“when” - e.g.: year, particular council and/or pope, etc.)

[cont]

 

[ziapueblo]

While the Pharisees did indeed use a “larger canon” than the Sadducees who only acknowledged the 5 books of Moses, senior Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin from Catholic Answers declared the Pharisaic canon was limited to the Hebrew Bible, which contain the same books as later Protestants. Mr. Akin’s quote begins around the 50 second mark:

Well that’s pop apologist Jimmy Akin. I’ll go with Father Sebastian Carnazzo’s, Melkite Greek Catholic priest and scriptural scholar, take on it. (As well as other biblical scholars)

ZP

 

[RaisedCatholic]

[cont]

you have to go by Church teaching, not personal interpretations of scripture, one is excommunicated with the hope of returning.

With additional respect, I cited the meaning of “anathema” from the New Catholic Version of the Bible approved by the Confraternity of Catholic Doctrine, as well as from Greek lexicons & concordances, not anyone’s “personal interpretation of Scripture.” But my question had to do with what happened to the state of canonized saints who died rejecting the canon of Trent, who pronounced “anathema” on them, since Protestants were also anathematized for rejecting this same list at Trent? To say “since they are saints, they are in Heaven,” doesn’t address they rejected it before they died. So, why are these “saints” who rejected the canon in Heaven, while other Catholics who rejected them (like the Reformers) not - at least not for certain?

Paul’s use of the Septuagint, is important, because as a student of Gamaliel,

The Septuagint was originally limited to the Pentateuch, not the rest of the OT, which was added later. According to NewAdvent.org, Paul’s teacher Gamaliel was the grandson of Hillel (who were all Pharisees), who espoused to the same OT canon as the OT scribe Ezra, who - obviously - did not include the Deuterocanon since it was not written yet.

Haven’t read all of these posts, but this is a very interesting discussion…

Welcome to the discussion! I would welcome you to read some of the past comments & replies from everyone here, particularly “how” a response is made to see how an issue is addressed. It has been a very respectful & - as you said - “interesting” discussion.

Not being a scholar/historian, my questions are: Didn’t the Holy Spirit declare the canon of the LEGITIMATE Christian Holy Bible to be closed in the 3rd century?

You will feel right at home. I can’t speak for anyone else here but me, but I am far from a “scholar/historian.” Only what I remember from my Catechism & what I learned in my Catholic education through college, and afterwards what I’ve studied.

You might be thinking about the fourth & fifth century church councils, rather than the third century, when local councils met at Rome, Hippo, and Carthage (twice). Despite having similar lists, they were not identical. Nor were they identical with the Septuagint, Vulgate, Douay-Rheims, nor the later Ecumenical Councils of Florence & Trent. This is why I have been asking for an “official” date when the early Church was “universal” in recognizing the same books “defined” at Trent.

For a Protestant, they would argue the OT canon was set prior to the time of Christ, since He held the Jews accountable for knowing what it was (“Have you not read?” / “It is written” / “the Scriptures say” etc.), even if not all Jews agreed what its contents were. If the canon was not defined by then, Jesus could not hold them accountable, but He did.

Enjoy the discussion & God bless!

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Well that’s pop apologist Jimmy Akin. I’ll go with Father Sebastian Carnazzo’s, Melkite Greek Catholic priest and scriptural scholar, take on it.

Well, keep in mind, you are on a Catholic Answers Forums, where Jimmy Akin is the senior apologist for Catholic Answers. Also, 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. Plus, if you read the NT, there are certain key phrases and words to describe OT books (“It is written” / “Have you not read?” / “the Scriptures say” / “the Law & the Prophets” etc). Out of roughly 300 of these terms in the NT to describe OT books, 100% of these terms describe books originally found in the boundaries of the Hebrew Bible, but not the Deuterocanon & books Catholics and Protestants agree are “Apocrypha.” So, while the NT cites the Septuagint, it only cites books in the Septuagint using one of these 300 terms from the books found in the boundaries of the Hebrew Bible, which are the same as in Protestant OTs today.

I don’t know who these “biblical scholars” you are citing, but the fact not all “scholars” agree - even on what books the Pharisees accepted - at best this is subjective. 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.

 

[ziapueblo]

Well, I’m good with my Orthodox Study Bible and go with the long lasting Tradition of the Church.

I don’t know who these “biblical scholars” you are citing, but the fact not all “scholars” agree - even on what books the Pharisees accepted - at best this is subjective.

Why don’t you email Father Carnazzo, steliasmelkite@gmail.com, and ask

ZP

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Why don’t you email Father Carnazzo, steliasmelkite@gmail.com, and ask

I just might. Thanks for the offer.