C
cyberwolf001
Guest
Why is it so hard to find them? Until spring of this year is seems that no Orthodox Bibles could be found in the Western World why is this?
- Status
A
anon52328184
Guest
there is a catholic bookstore in the area where i live and they have a section that is orthodox. i noticed an orthodox bible once. how is the orthodox bible different than a catholic bible if i may ask?
C
cyberwolf001
Guest
An extra psalm and extra books.
Plus I’m sure the notes are different.
Plus I’m sure the notes are different.
A
anon52328184
Guest
what are the extra books?
C
cyberwolf001
Guest
1 Esdras 3rd and 4th Maccabees and Psalm 151
C
Chaldean_Rite
Guest
So that is their official canon?
E
ematouk
Guest
Yep.
One must understand history to know why there is a difference. In the early church, TWO canons were widely available - the Alexandrian canon and the Palestinian canon.
The Alexandrian canon consisted of the modern day Protestant Old Testament, while the Palestinian canon had extra material (this is the canon which is used in the LXX).
The Orthodox Church accepted the LXX and thus accepted the Palestinian canon. The western church “historically” accepted the Alexandrian canon, but the “extra” material was regarded as good for reading, though not being scripture.
Later at the council of Trent, some (but not all) of the Palestinian canon was accepted as scripture by the Roman Catholic Church. So an Orthodox might be able to say “Catholics took books out of the bible”, while Protestants can say “Catholics added books to the bible”.
Regardless, Orthodoxy and Protestantism have historically grounded canons - while the Catholic canon is a somewhat hybrid (a new canon).
In front of Protestants, Catholics need to justify why they “added” these books to the Old Testament, while in front of Orthodox, they need to justify why they “removed” these books from the bible.
God bless.
One must understand history to know why there is a difference. In the early church, TWO canons were widely available - the Alexandrian canon and the Palestinian canon.
The Alexandrian canon consisted of the modern day Protestant Old Testament, while the Palestinian canon had extra material (this is the canon which is used in the LXX).
The Orthodox Church accepted the LXX and thus accepted the Palestinian canon. The western church “historically” accepted the Alexandrian canon, but the “extra” material was regarded as good for reading, though not being scripture.
Later at the council of Trent, some (but not all) of the Palestinian canon was accepted as scripture by the Roman Catholic Church. So an Orthodox might be able to say “Catholics took books out of the bible”, while Protestants can say “Catholics added books to the bible”.
Regardless, Orthodoxy and Protestantism have historically grounded canons - while the Catholic canon is a somewhat hybrid (a new canon).
In front of Protestants, Catholics need to justify why they “added” these books to the Old Testament, while in front of Orthodox, they need to justify why they “removed” these books from the bible.
God bless.
D
DL82
Guest
What’s the position for Eastern Catholics? Do they use the Catholic or Orthodox canon?
Also, I have a NRSV (New Revised Standard Version) Bible that contains all the deuterocanonical books (the Catholic and Orthodox books) in an appendix. I’m not sure if that’s what you’re looking for, but that’s pretty widely available.
Also, I have a NRSV (New Revised Standard Version) Bible that contains all the deuterocanonical books (the Catholic and Orthodox books) in an appendix. I’m not sure if that’s what you’re looking for, but that’s pretty widely available.
E
ematouk
Guest
Eastern Catholics are bound by the DOGMA of the Catholic Church. They accept the Catholic canon, though some Eastern rite Catholics believe the non-accepted books of the palestinian canon are profitable for reading (though not part of inspired scripture).
I do not have the NRSV (I have the older revised standard version though).
The books included in the Orthodox bible canon that is not included in the Catholic bible canon are listed in The Orthodox Study Bible page XXIII.
Books we accept that Catholics do not include:
. 3 Maccabees (sometimes split into 3 and 4 Maccabees)
. Psalm 151
. Susanna (part of the LXX book of Daniel)
. Bel and the Serpent (part of the LXX book of Daniel)
. Hymn of the Three Young Men (part of the LXX book of Daniel)
. 99 extra verses in the book of Ezra (which we call 1 Esdras)
I might be missing something, but the other differences are simply a rearrangement of verses or order of events in a book (such as in 1 Esdras vs Ezra).
Hope that helps.
God bless.
P
peregrinus_sg
Guest
I think you mistyped. Catholics also accept
-Susanna (as chapter 13 of Daniel)
-Bel and the Dragon (as chapter 14 of Daniel)
-Song of the Three Young Men (found within chapter 3 of Daniel)
It is true that Catholics do not consider 3 Maccabees, 1 Esdras and Psalm 151 in the Canon of Scripture.
I’m just wondering: has the Orthodox Churches actually defined the books such as 3 Maccabees, 1 Esdras, etc as part of Scripture? Or is it just commonly accepted without any former definitions?
E
ematouk
Guest
Sorry I apologise for that mistake.
I had no idea the last 3 in my list are part of the Roman Catholic Bible.
Has the Orthodox Church defined these books? Yes.
See the Confession of Dositheus under “QUESTION III” at this address catholicity.elcore.net/ConfessionOfDositheus.html
This confession is the list of decrees and questions accepted by the Synod of Jerusalem in 1672. Some Catholics call it “The Orthodox Council of Trent” because of its importance. (Though us Orthodox wouldnt make such a link).
As you can see Orthodox Christianity didnt cease to have councils after the 7th Ecumenical council.
God bless.
B
bpbasilphx
Guest
I’m just wondering: has the Orthodox Churches actually defined the books such as 3 Maccabees, 1 Esdras, etc as part of Scripture? Or is it just commonly accepted without any former definitions?
There are no councils recognized as Ecumenical that define 3/4 Maccabees etc as being canonical.
There are no councils recognized as Ecumenical that define 3/4 Maccabees etc as being canonical.
A
adstrinity
Guest
That is not how I heard it. Hold on while I find another post.
edit forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=258272
Here. Especially Post #4. Just so that you have another way of looking at how this MAY have went down. This makes sense to me, but, I haven’t studied it.
C
cyberwolf001
Guest
But to get back to my question is it that you couldn’t find an Orthodox Bible until very recently? When I looked into getting one I just found Protestant King James versions at online Orthodox stores.
That is what confuses me. I think this may be the first Christian group I know of who’s scriptures are hard to find.
That is what confuses me. I think this may be the first Christian group I know of who’s scriptures are hard to find.
B
bpbasilphx
Guest
But to get back to my question is it that you couldn’t find an Orthodox Bible until very recently?
** English Orthodox versions have heretofore been hard to find, but NT versions did exist.
The Orthodox Study Bible is the first readily availble translation of the LXX OT.**
** English Orthodox versions have heretofore been hard to find, but NT versions did exist.
The Orthodox Study Bible is the first readily availble translation of the LXX OT.**
C
cyberwolf001
Guest
Yes but why? I mean surely it would be a top priority to get the Sacred Scriptures into peoples hands asap. Especially since according to Orthodox info one major flaw we Catholics have is our de-emphasis on Sacred Scripture.
E
ematouk
Guest
Ahh, I think I know where you are coming from now. What you mean is that you couldnt find an Orthodox ENGLISH translation of the Bible until fairly recently.
The Orthodox Church has always had the bible in Greek in the Greek lands. St Cyril and Methodius translated the bible into Russian and took it to the Russian lands. After the Muslim invasion the bible was translated into Arabic in Antioch and Jerusalem. Orthodox translations of the bible have always been widely available.
BUT, not in English. The reason has more to do with history than anything else. After the WW2, each country brought their own churches into the English speaking world, while speaking their own language. So only bibles in their own language were needed.
The next generation already had bibles they could depend on such as NKJV, NIV, NAB, Duay-Reims, etc… so they didnt initially need to translate the bible from scratch. Even in The Orthodox Study Bible, the translation is largely the NKJV to avoid having to start everything again from scratch. [the reason the NKJV was chosen was mostly because it was the only translation in modern English - Catholic or Protestant - which would allow us to use it free of charge, and the writers of the Orthodox Study Bible wanted its price to be as cheap as possible for availability].
This is a short history and general summery. There are many factors why it hasnt been released until now, but this should give you a basic idea.
God bless.
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother ematouk,
Please permit the following corrections to your post:
Second, the Western Church did not accept the Alexandrian canon – rather, it accepted the Canon of the Council of Carthage which was confirmed by Pope St. Leo the Great. Btw, this is also (practically speaking) the Canon of the Coptic Orthodox Church.
Third, as mentioned in another thread, the word “canon” is NOT, patristically speaking, equated with “Scripture.” “Canonical” Scripture refers to a specific subset of Scripture in general – that is, those books which are to be used as the basis for doctrine. There were also other Scriptures that were not used as a basis for doctrine, but only used for edification. So it is wrong to assume that the material that “was regarded as good for reading” was not regarded as Scripture. It is true that they were not considered as “canonical Scripture,” but they were considered Scripture nonetheless.
And as I noted in another thread, Trent did NOT define the books that were to be called “Scripture.” Rather, Trent ONLY defined the books that were to be called “canonical,” according to the patristic understanding of the word. Thus, it is completely acceptable if other Churches within the Catholic Communion consider other books as Scripture worthy to be read for edification.
Blessings,
Marduk
Please permit the following corrections to your post:
First, there were actually at least 5 different OT canons (there were actually more, but I say “5” just as a general, not specific, consideration) floating around throughout the early Church. Some OT canons contained books that other regions included in the NT. The earliest synodical attempt to establish an OT canon was the Council of Laodicia, which mirrored the LXX.
Second, the Western Church did not accept the Alexandrian canon – rather, it accepted the Canon of the Council of Carthage which was confirmed by Pope St. Leo the Great. Btw, this is also (practically speaking) the Canon of the Coptic Orthodox Church.
Third, as mentioned in another thread, the word “canon” is NOT, patristically speaking, equated with “Scripture.” “Canonical” Scripture refers to a specific subset of Scripture in general – that is, those books which are to be used as the basis for doctrine. There were also other Scriptures that were not used as a basis for doctrine, but only used for edification. So it is wrong to assume that the material that “was regarded as good for reading” was not regarded as Scripture. It is true that they were not considered as “canonical Scripture,” but they were considered Scripture nonetheless.
While the Protestants can do whatever they want, it is invalid and unpatristic for Eastern Orthodox to claim that the Catholic Church took books away from the Bible. The Sixth and Seventh Ecumenical Councils accepted ALL the canons that were extant in the Church – including the one determined by the Council of Carthage under St. Augustine and confirmed by the bishop of Rome. Please correct your fellow EO who would ever criticize Catholics for “taking away” books from the Bible.
And as I noted in another thread, Trent did NOT define the books that were to be called “Scripture.” Rather, Trent ONLY defined the books that were to be called “canonical,” according to the patristic understanding of the word. Thus, it is completely acceptable if other Churches within the Catholic Communion consider other books as Scripture worthy to be read for edification.
As noted, the Catholic Canon dates from the latter fourth century. It is by no means “new.” Protestants don’t have historically grounded canons. Their canon dates from the 16th century, based on an erroneous interpretation of St. Jerome.
There’s no need for Catholics to justify their canon. EO who feel Catholics “removed” books from the Bible are merely repudiating the Sixth and Seventh Ecumenical Councils.
Blessings,
Marduk
J
josephdaniel29
Guest
So?
A
Aramis
Guest
Orthodox bibles have been readily available in Alaska for years. But their availability was through Eastern Orthodox parishes, for the most part.
My Russian Bible was harder to find than an English bible with 3 & 4 Macabees.
My Russian Bible was harder to find than an English bible with 3 & 4 Macabees.
- Status