Roman Catholic vs Eastern Orthodox Canon

[garysibio]

I just picked up a copy of the English Standard Version of the Bible which contains the Deuterocanonical books. It also contains the books which the Eastern Orthodox accept yet we reject which started me thinking.

The Catholic Church has been engaged in ecumenical talks with the Eastern Orthodox. One of the issues that would have to be settled before we could unite is the canon of Scripture.

Obviously one option is that the Eastern Orthodox would reject the books which we reject. My question is: Is that necessary? I know the Council of Trent defined our canon but does it allow for additional books to be added. Did Trent say these books constitute the Bible, no more and no less or does it just say that these books are to be included in Scripture leaving the way to add the Orthodox books? This is just one of those things that make me go “Hmmmm.”

Gary

 

[diggerdomer]

Excellent question; and one that minds greater than ours will have to ultimately resolve. I think it’s important to note that (1) the division between Orthodox and Catholic predates the council of Trent, so any further union would have to “negotiate” how to interpret/understand the teachings of Trent, including the statement on the Canon of Scripture. And, (2) the differences only apply to the Old Testament; all Christians share the same understanding of the Canon of the New Testament.
Cheers

 

[Verbum]

Hi Gary,

There is not a total consensus among Orthodox confessions on the “extra” books of the Orthodox bible. However, this is not a major issue with them. God grant that it would come down to that alone.

Verbum

 

[garysibio]

Hi Gary,

There is not a total consensus among Orthodox confessions on the “extra” books of the Orthodox bible. However, this is not a major issue with them. God grant that it would come down to that alone.

Verbum

I didn’t realize that. Thanks for the info.

Gary

 

[Crimson_Seraph]

I’ve always found it ironic that the same arguments that Roman Catholics use against Protestants because they “butcher the Bible”, can also be used by Eastern Orthodox Christians against said Roman Catholics

 

[juliamajor]

I’ve always found it ironic that the same arguments that Roman Catholics use against Protestants because they “butcher the Bible”, can also be used by Eastern Orthodox Christians against said Roman Catholics

As VERBUM said it’s no biggie.Orthodox and Catholic don’t get apoplectic over like Protestants. I think it’s because we both respect the LXX and Protestants don’t.

 

[David_Zampino]

I just picked up a copy of the English Standard Version of the Bible which contains the Deuterocanonical books. It also contains the books which the Eastern Orthodox accept yet we reject which started me thinking.

The Catholic Church has been engaged in ecumenical talks with the Eastern Orthodox. One of the issues that would have to be settled before we could unite is the canon of Scripture.

Obviously one option is that the Eastern Orthodox would reject the books which we reject. My question is: Is that necessary? I know the Council of Trent defined our canon but does it allow for additional books to be added. Did Trent say these books constitute the Bible, no more and no less or does it just say that these books are to be included in Scripture leaving the way to add the Orthodox books? This is just one of those things that make me go “Hmmmm.”

Gary

Actually, we could go to the Council of Florence, etc. for a possible answer. One of the decrees of that Ecumenical Council, the decree of unification with the Copts, detailed the Canon of Scripture later attested at Trent. And Florence was, at least for several decades, accepted in the East.

 

[Crimson_Seraph]

As VERBUM said it’s no biggie.Orthodox and Catholic don’t get apoplectic over like Protestants. I think it’s because we both respect the LXX and Protestants don’t.

Saying that Protestants don’t respect the Septuagint is a blanket and ignorant statement I think. It’s equivical to a Protestant saying “Well all Catholics believe you’re saved by works!” That’s not what you believe, and I don’t disrespect the Septuagint.

 

[juliamajor]

Oh thanks how charitable of you-ignorant .ok. and no they are not equivalent Statements.LXX is Not a doctrine .And via what I’ve read on the forums I don’t think the majority of your brethren take the LXX as seriously as the MT nor do they seem to respect it as much. The superiority of the MT is touted loudly on these boards and the inferiority of the LXX… Take that which ever way you want. Just try not to get your panties in a twist or start foaming at the mouth.

 

[Crimson_Seraph]

I ment no insult sir or ma’am. I merely ment that your statement was a blanket one and just assumed that all Protestants are the same. That is what I ment by the comparasion by the way.

I think the LXX is a very important work being that it was used by the Apostles in their writings. The MT, however, is also important and the two should be carefully studied together.

I believe my question in regardes to the canon is a valid one still. If we are to accept the books that are in the Catholic Bible on the basis that they were in the LXX or the Bible the Apostles supposedly used. Why then do you not accept I Esdras or the Prayer of Manasses which are found in the LXX???

 

[patrick457]

I ment no insult sir or ma’am. I merely ment that your statement was a blanket one and just assumed that all Protestants are the same. That is what I ment by the comparasion by the way.

I think the LXX is a very important work being that it was used by the Apostles in their writings. The MT, however, is also important and the two should be carefully studied together.

I believe my question in regardes to the canon is a valid one still. If we are to accept the books that are in the Catholic Bible on the basis that they were in the LXX or the Bible the Apostles supposedly used. Why then do you not accept I Esdras or the Prayer of Manasses which are found in the LXX???

As for the differences between the Western and the Eastern Canon, I think that these synods were authoritative only in the Western churches. The Christian churches of the East had no similar authoritative synodal decree.

The declarations of the Synods of Hippo and Carthage had more influence in the West than in the East (as they were local synods as opposed to ecumenical ones); the Eastern churches had, in general, a weaker feeling than the Western for the necessity of making a sharp delineation with regard to the Biblical canon. It was more conscious of the gradation of spiritual quality among the books that it accepted and was less often disposed to assert that the books which it rejected possessed no spiritual quality at all.

In fact, the canon defined by the Synod of Hippo originally met with dispute, especially from the church in North Africa, which is why it was necessary that the three synods in Carthage in 393, 397, and 419 confirm the decision. The Western churches could have chosen to summon more local councils to conform their canon with that of, say, the Ethiopians or the Greeks, or they could have held an ecumenical council, consisting of “all the holy churches of God”. But they didn’t. They were happy with their canon, and the other churches were content with theirs (after all, the difference lies mostly in the fact that other churches had more books; no church lacked the ‘essential’ seven books, which essentially included the Deuteros).

After centuries of being a non-issue, it was technically only during the Reformation that the Canon became such a big deal in the West, prompting the Latin Church to definitively and formally define what books went in or out in the Council of Trent.

 

[CeltusSanctus]

I ment no insult sir or ma’am. I merely ment that your statement was a blanket one and just assumed that all Protestants are the same. That is what I ment by the comparasion by the way.

I completely one should not make any blanket statements about Protestantism because the countless theological disagreements and divisions that do exist within it. I do think it’s fair to unify them with sola scriptura and sola fide tho.

I think the LXX is a very important work being that it was used by the Apostles in their writings. The MT, however, is also important and the two should be carefully studied together.

I completely agree with you that Bible translations should use both the Septuagint and the Messoretic Text. This is exactly what the Catholic Church does when it translates the Bible. The Messoretic text has value because it is in Hebrew which is the language that the Septuagint was translated from. We must remember that the Septuagint was translated from Hebrew **but not from the Messoretic **Text version. It’s also interesting to note that Hebrew versions of the deuterocanonicals have been found in the Dead Sea scrolls.

I would argue further about the value of the Latin Vulgate. The Latin Vulgate was the work of St. Jerome and it’s value lies in the fact that St. Jerome used Scriptural manuscripts no longer available that **predate **the current manuscripts we have. This makes the Latin Vulgate give a valuable perspective to the translation process with the insight of how earlier manuscripts were translated.

 

[CeltusSanctus]

I believe my question in regardes to the canon is a valid one still. If we are to accept the books that are in the Catholic Bible on the basis that they were in the LXX or the Bible the Apostles supposedly used. Why then do you not accept I Esdras or the Prayer of Manasses which are found in the LXX???

When it comes to discussion about canon, there’s some things to keep in mind:

1. In the time of Jesus, the Jews did not authoritatively agree on a Canon.
2. Roughly **2/3rds **of the Old Testament quotes in the New Testament come from the Septuagint
3. The Apostles used the Septuagint primarily because it was in Greek one of the major international languages at the time which was useful for gentiles
4. The Septuagint was translated roughly a century before Christ and was free from the danger of political/ideological corruptions by anti-Jesus Rabbis
5. The early Church **inherited **the favored use of the Septuagint from the Apostles themselves
6. The Jewish Canon was defined 40 years after Jesus and largely in opposition to Christianity
7. The Messoretic Text was formed by **anti-Jesus Rabbis **centuries after Jesus and was in opposition to Christianity (the modern Talmud developed in the same way)
8. The early Church did not universally define the Old Testament Canon
9. Western Christianity came to an agreement in the West for **an authorized **Old Testament Canon in the 4th century, this is the same canon list used by Catholics today
10. Eastern Christianity did** not **come to an agreement in the East for an authorized Old Testament Canon
11. The Catholic Church defined (not just “authorized”) the Canon of both Testaments at the Council of Trent in 1545.
12. The Protestant Canon was simply an acceptance of the post-Jesus Jewish Canon and post-Jesus formation of the Messoretic Text
13. The Catholic Church believes extra books not found in the Catholic Canon can still be useful and valuable **but not **Divinely inspired. In the past, Catholic Bibles used to publish non-inspired books next to the Catholic Canon for this purpose, but the practice was abandoned because of the potential to confuse the uninformed.

This in mind, the separated Eastern Church has **no unified acceptance **or definition of the Old Testament Canon. That being said, the Eastern Church does **universally accept **all of the books found in the Catholic list. This means historically speaking all the books of the Catholic Old Testament are **accepted universally **in the East and the West. Like the New Testament Canon, one could make the argument that the historic **universal acceptance **of the books in the Catholic list makes the Catholic list inspired. In Eastern Christianity there are extra books not found in the Catholic list. The Eastern Church has **no agreement **about which list of extra books should be included in the Old Testament Canon. The Russian Orthodox Canon includes more of these extra books than the Greek Orthodox do and so on.

The Protestant** acceptance **of the post-Jesus Jewish Canon and Messoretic Text does not reflect the actions of the early Church. It is true that the great Scripture scholar St. Jerome held the private opinion of post-Jesus Jewish Canon, but this was his private opinion only and did not reflect the Church councils. It is important to note that St. Jerome humbly recanted his opinion when Church councils and Papal decrees ruled against it.

The differences between the Protestant Canon and the Catholic Canon are not comparable to the difference between the Catholic Canon and the multiple Eastern Orthodox Canons.

As for Esdras and Manasses, their presence in the Septuagint does not guarentee them inspiration. The Catholic Church defined the Canon of Scripture, that is, it’s list of books not the **translation **it was made in. The Septuagint translation was made at a time when there was no defined Canon. The Apostles used the Septuagint during a period when there was **no defined Canon. The Septuagint was simply a translation that included **the 7 deuterocanonicals that would later be **defined **as Inspired by a Church Council. This is a problem for the Protestant belief of “scripture alone”. Scripture “alone” did not create it’s Canon, Church Councils did so.

I think any honest Protestant who loves our redeemer should prayerfully reflect on a few questions. By what authority did the Church define which books would be Inspired? Wouldn’t the authority to define the Bible’s Canon have to come from the Holy Spirit? If the Catholic Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, what does that mean about it’s teaching authority?

God bless you and your sincere love of Sacred Scripture

Vivat Iesus Christi

 

[patrick457]

1. In the time of Jesus, the Jews did not authoritatively agree on a Canon.

Correct. It would seem that evidence suggests that the process of canonization occurred between 200 BC and AD 200 - and even then, some disputes were still present among Jews for a century or two following that.

1. The Messoretic Text was formed by **anti-Jesus Rabbis **centuries after Jesus and was in opposition to Christianity (the modern Talmud developed in the same way)

Actually the Masoretic Text had origins long before the Judeo-Christian scuffles of the earlier half of the first millenium, and before the Masoretes standardized the text between the 7th and 11th centuries. Indeed, in some readings, the oldest Biblical fragments we have among the Dead Sea Scrolls support the Septuagint over the Masoretic, proving that many of the variants in Greek were also present in early Semitic manuscripts. The scrolls also show numerous small variations in orthography, both as against the later Masoretic text, and between each other. It is also evident from the notings of corrections and of variant alternatives that scribes felt free to choose according to their personal taste and discretion between different readings. All this shows that in this period, there was not always the scrupulous uniformity of text that was so stressed among Jews in later centuries.

However, despite these variations, most of the Qumran fragments can be classified as being closer to the MT than to any other text group that has survived. 60% can be classed as being of proto-Masoretic type, and a further 20% Qumran style with bases in proto-Masoretic texts, compared to 5% proto-Samaritan type, 5% Septuagintal type, and 10% non-aligned. The most widely accepted view today is that an ancestor of the Masoretic Text we have it today was indeed extant as early as the 2nd century BC, contemporaneous with the textual variant that begat the Septuagint. The most widely accepted view today is that the original Septuagint provided a reasonably accurate record of an early Hebrew textual variant that differed from the ancestor of the Masoretic text as well as those of the Latin Vulgate, where both of the latter seem to have a more similar textual heritage.

 

[11th_hour]

I just picked up a copy of the English Standard Version of the Bible which contains the Deuterocanonical books. It also contains the books which the Eastern Orthodox accept yet we reject which started me thinking.

The Catholic Church has been engaged in ecumenical talks with the Eastern Orthodox. One of the issues that would have to be settled before we could unite is the canon of Scripture.

Obviously one option is that the Eastern Orthodox would reject the books which we reject. My question is: Is that necessary? I know the Council of Trent defined our canon but does it allow for additional books to be added. Did Trent say these books constitute the Bible, no more and no less or does it just say that these books are to be included in Scripture leaving the way to add the Orthodox books? This is just one of those things that make me go “Hmmmm.”

Gary

If unity happens I think Trent will be viewed as a local council, and not binding on the whole Church. As has already been pointed out, Orthodox have not held a council to make a particular canon dogma, so there would be no problem from an Orthodox POV with the RCC using the canon declared at Trent, and the Protestants using the canon of Luther.

 

[Salvatore123]

Celtus,

You said in part: “I would argue further about the value of the Latin Vulgate. The Latin Vulgate was the work of St. Jerome and it’s value lies in the fact that St. Jerome used Scriptural manuscripts no longer available that predate the current manuscripts we have. This makes the Latin Vulgate give a valuable perspective to the translation process with the insight of how earlier manuscripts were translated.”

I agree with your statements about the value of the Latin Vulgate and the availability of ancient texts available to Jerome when he compiled his Vulgate.

The problems, however, are (1) Jerome’s Vulgate “vanished” somewhere between the time he compiled it and the Clementine Vulgata. Even the Duoay-Rheims was not based on Jerome’s Latin Vulgate - it was based on the Latin Vulgate as it then existed in the late 1500’s/early 1600’s; (2) you probably know this already, but for others reading this thread who may not, be careful referring to Jerome as an authority on the OT canon. Although Jerome included the deuterocanonical books per orders from Rome, Jerome, relying on Hebrew OT scholars, did not, PERSONALLY, think the deutero’s were canonical.

Based on my research and reading for the thread I started a while back (that is still active) regarding “the most accurate bible”, Jerome NEVER publically “accepted” the deutero’s as canonical - he simply (as stated above) “listened” to Rome and included them in his Latin Vulgate.

I do not dispute Rome’s decree that Jerome was a saint - I can’t - it is an infallible decree. I do, however, find it a bit ironic, considering Jerome had alienated so many people in the Church (including the then-pope towards the end of Jerome’s life) with “unconventional” behavior and views, that he finished his biblical work in what can best be described living life as a hermit in a cave . . .

Now THAT shows one the power of the Holy Spirit: Jerome produces the greatest and most influential bible the world has ever known, working by hand and in a cave, and yet we Catholics today cannot put together an English bible that everyone “accepts” as accurate and “valid” as far as the vernacular translation.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

It’s also interesting to note that Hebrew versions of the deuterocanonicals have been found in the Dead Sea scrolls.

To be clear, excerpts from three of the deuterocanonical books were found at Qumran: Sirach, Tobit and Baruch.

The Latin Vulgate was the work of St. Jerome and it’s value lies in the fact that St. Jerome used Scriptural manuscripts no longer available that **predate **the current manuscripts we have. This makes the Latin Vulgate give a valuable perspective to the translation process with the insight of how earlier manuscripts were translated.

The Qumran manuscripts (such as they are) predate Jerome by hundreds of years.

 

[dtg]

It could be worth noting, concerning the canon, that Jesus is called the King of the Jews and the Jews recognize 24 (66) books.

---

The Bible in a Verse

But now once at the conclusion of the ages Jesus has
appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.
Hebrews 9: 26b

 

[Salvatore123]

dtg,

I could not tell from your post (and I am NOT picking on you - I mention you only because of your post in this thread) if you are suggesting that the OT canon that lacks the deutero’s should be given great weight because (1) the Jews authored the OT, (2) Jesus was a Jew, and (3) we should accept the Jewish OT because, after all, “it is THEIR compilation” of books.

To Protestants who I have engaged in apologetics with regarding this exact issue, I always ask the following question (to which they have no reply):

"You say that Catholics distorted the OT because they ‘added’ books to the OT, and as the OT was authored by Jews, and the Jews do NOT accept the deutero’s, we should follow suit on their ‘authority’. Well, it was also “the Jews” who denied Christ was our Savior and demanded his death. Don’t you think that ‘kinda’ diminishes their so-called authority? Should we follow the Jews’ viewpoint on Christ’s divinity as well? "

It is very easy to fall prey to the argument, “well, they authored it, so they must be pretty authoritative on the subject”.

 

[peregrinus_sg]

I’ve read somewhere that a pan-Orthodox synod is in preparations and they might hold the synod next year (2011). One of the items might be regarding the canon of Scripture among Orthodox Churches. Whatever position they adopt with regards the additional books will certainly have ecumenical implications.

I don’t think the Orthodox generally consider the shorter canon adopted by Protestants as acceptable though. During the 17th century, one of the Patriachs of Constantinople was influenced by Calvinism and adopted the shorter canon. The Greek Orthodox eventually held a synod in Jerusalem and condemned his position as heretical, and went on to list that the canon included the books of Maccabees, the book of Judith etc. One problem was the list was not exhaustive or specific (e.g. which books of Maccabees). As a local synod, some theologians and Orthodox Bishops also considered its decisions non-binding, whether for theological or political reasons.