Roman or Orthodox Canon?

[Spence06]

Hey All!

I came across a fact that I was ignorant of. That the Orthodox have a different old testament canon then the Catholic Church. May I humbly Ask why is this so and if there are any links to information where I can find in the subject?

Thank you all and God bless you.

 

[Todd_Easton]

It is my understanding that the Greek Orthodox OT canon is larger than the Catholic OT canon by a few books. The Russian Orthodox OT canon is larger than the Greek Orthodox OT canon by a book. And the Ethiopian Orthodox OT canon is larger still.

Here’s a link to an atheist’s website that discusses this issue of differing OT canons. The facts seem to be correct but they are presented with anti-Christian comments. So, beware. geocities.com/paulntobin/otcanon.html#list

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Todd Easton:

It is my understanding that the Greek Orthodox OT canon is larger than the Catholic OT canon by a few books. The Russian Orthodox OT canon is larger than the Greek Orthodox OT canon by a book. And the Ethiopian Orthodox OT canon is larger still.

As one who owns an Orthodox Bible this is news to me.

Here’s a link to an atheist’s website that discusses this issue of differing OT canons. The facts seem to be correct but they are presented with anti-Christian comments. So, beware. geocities.com/paulntobin/otcanon.html#list

I would advise that you never use those who are against the faith as sources of information about the faith.

 

[Apologia100]

There was an excellent article in this months This Rock magazine regarding the canon of scripture. I’ll try to summarize here and keep it simple.

During Jesus’ earthly ministry, there were 3 groups of Jews who used different versions of scripture. The Sadduccees considered only the Pentateuch (first 5 books) of Scripture to be inspired. The Pharisees used a canon containing the Pentateuch, Palms, Proverbs, and the Prophets as Scripture. The largest group of Jews did not live in Israel, however. They are called the diaspora (dispersed) Jews and used what was called the Alexandrian Canon, also known as the Septuagint.

Jesus is noted from quoting from all three versions, depending on whom He was addressing. When addressing Saduccees, He used Scripture from the Pentateuch. For the Pharisees, he used the “Law and the Prophets”, and with Greek Jews He used the Septuagint. St. Paul used the Septuagint almost exlusively, as most of his Jewish audience would be exclusively familiar with this version. As such, it was the canon of Scripture that was included in the Christian canon and affirmed at the Councils of Hippo, Carthage, and Rome, then formally at Trent.

There is an interesting historical event that many Protestants cite that they use to defend their use of an alternate canon, the Jewish Council of Jabneh (also called Jamnia or Gamnia). This council, called together after the Roman destruction of Jerusalem, was never an official doctrinal council. I.e., it did not have binding authority to declare a sealed canon. They got together to counter the “Christian heresy” and, because of Roman persecution, sought to exclude books from scripture that they consider had undue “Greek” influence.

Since the Pentacost began the Church Age, we no longer fall under the authority of the Sanhedron, but we fall under Apostolic Authority. Since the Apostles and their decendents have declared the books of the Septuagint to be the Canon of Scripture, that is the canon we follow. Here is an interesting link that provides more information.

kensmen.com/catholic/septuagint.html

Hope that helps. God Bless!!!

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Spence06:

Hey All!

I came across a fact that I was ignorant of. That the Orthodox have a different old testament canon then the Catholic Church. May I humbly Ask why is this so and if there are any links to information where I can find in the subject?

Thank you all and God bless you.

It is my guess and it is only that. That it is because the Septuagint has more books than the Catholic Council accepted as canonical. So if they use the whole Greek LXX as their Old Testament their Bible would have more than 72 books.

 

[Ghosty]

I believe it has more to do with the fact that the early Councils on Scripture Canon were inclusive and not exclusive, though I could be very wrong. Basically they were saying “these books are definately Scripture,” but they didn’t write off all books that weren’t included in the list. They weren’t trying to formally limit Scripture, but rather to firmly establish those particular books. Certain Churches still held to a slightly larger, but non-contridicting, collection, and this was permitted because those works weren’t formally excluded. In fact, I believe even Trent uses inclusive language and not exclusive language, saying simply that those who say that any of those books are not Scripture shall be considered Anathema.I’m no expert on this subject, however, so take what I’ve written with a grain of salt.

 

[GWitherow]

Apologia100 gives a nice summary of why the Catholic (western) canon came about and some of the history behind it. However, the original question is left unanswered and it is one that I’m curious to know the answer.

If the early councils sited in this thread closed and identified the canon, why do the eastern churches (orthodox churches) not abide by them? It weakens the Catholic argument that the canon was definitaly decided early on. The Protestants argue that the Church came up with it’s list at Trent. Catholics believe the list was just re-affirmed at Trent, not established. How does one argue that the councils of Hippo, Rome, etc. were not just local councils, not recognized by the universal Church (east and west)?

Is there a Historian in the house?

 

[Apologia100]

GWitherow:

Apologia100 gives a nice summary of why the Catholic (western) canon came about and some of the history behind it. However, the original question is left unanswered and it is one that I’m curious to know the answer.

If the early councils sited in this thread closed and identified the canon, why do the eastern churches (orthodox churches) not abide by them? It weakens the Catholic argument that the canon was definitaly decided early on. The Protestants argue that the Church came up with it’s list at Trent. Catholics believe the list was just re-affirmed at Trent, not established. How does one argue that the councils of Hippo, Rome, etc. were not just local councils, not recognized by the universal Church (east and west)?

Is there a Historian in the house?

That is because the Catholic Canon was official defined at the Council of Trent in the 1500. By that time, the Eastern Churches had been in schism for over 400 years and did not feel compelled to abide by any Ecumencial Council after the 4th Council of Constantinople.

 

[Ghosty]

GWitherow: The difference is that the Protestants argue that certain books should NOT be considered Scripture, which violates the Councils. Arguing that other works ARE Scripture doesn’t necessarily violate them, as near as I can tell.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

GWitherow:

Apologia100 gives a nice summary of why the Catholic (western) canon came about and some of the history behind it. However, the original question is left unanswered and it is one that I’m curious to know the answer.

If the early councils sited in this thread closed and identified the canon, why do the eastern churches (orthodox churches) not abide by them? It weakens the Catholic argument that the canon was definitaly decided early on. The Protestants argue that the Church came up with it’s list at Trent. Catholics believe the list was just re-affirmed at Trent, not established. How does one argue that the councils of Hippo, Rome, etc. were not just local councils, not recognized by the universal Church (east and west)?

Is there a Historian in the house?

The Canons of Hippo and Carthage and Rome were accepted by the Bishop of Rome which made their decrees something to be paid attention to by the universal Church, however not necessarly binding as a Universal Council’s would. The Eastern Churches accepted the Canon of the Scriptures. What the question was about was the Canon used by Orthodox Christians not Eastern Catholics.

 

[GWitherow]

Ok, I’m hearing a couple of different things.

Apologia100 and Br. Rich SFO: you two are saying the Canon of scripture was not officially closed until 1500 (Trent). You may be right but I’ve always understood the Canon was closed in the earlier councils mentioned. However, the behavior of the Orthodox is in favor of your point.

Ghosty: You’re saying the Canon of scripture has never been closed, we’ve only been told which books (thus far) are scripture, not what isn’t. I’m not sure that is right. Here’s 3 sources:

Council of Carthage (397): Can. 36 [It has been decided] that nothing except the Canonical Scriptures should be read in the church under the name of the Divine Scriptures: But the Canonical Scriptures are… (See Denzinger page 39 as a source if you have the book)

The council of Rome explicitly closed the New Testament canon.

After the council of Rome listed the NT books it ends with this statement; “The canon of the New Testament ends here”. Page 33 in Denzinger.

Before that, at the beginning of it’s listing it states, “Now we must treat of the divine scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun.”

Ghosty: The use of the word shun implies a closure.
Apologia100 and Br. Rich SFO: This council is claiming to speak for “the universal” Catholic Church. Maybe in rejecting the Pope the orthodox rejected this council also because it wasn’t ecumenical. Perhaps the Cathlic Church recognizes this council as authoritative and binding the Orthodox don’t. (I think this is what you’ve said).

Trent says, “And so that no doubt may arise in anyone’s mind as to which are the books that are accepted by this Synod, it has been decreed that a list of the Sacred books be added to this decree”. It then lists the books. Page 244 in Denzinger.

I think we’d have to conclude the Canon is closed.

Thanks for the feedback to all of you.

 

[Todd_Easton]

ByzCath:

As one who owns an Orthodox Bible this is news to me.

In additional to the OT books accepted by the Catholic Church, it is my understanding that the Greek Orthodox Church also accepts 1 Esdras, Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151 and 3 Maccabees as canonical. (The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha, Oxford University Press, 1977, in the article after the Forward entitled, “The Number and Sequence of the Books of the Bible”, by Bruce M. Metzger)

In addition to the OT books accepted by the Greek Orthodox Church, it is my understanding that the Russian Orthodox Church also accepts 2 Esdras as canonical.
home.it.net.au/~jgrapsas/pages/old_testament.html

In addition to the OT books accepted by the Russian Orthodox Church, it is my understanding that the Ethiopian Church also accepts Enoch and Jubilees as canonical.
gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/ethrcot.stm

 

[GAssisi]

I recently learned from lurking on another website (Eastern) that the Eastern Catholics have the same Canon of Scripture as the Orthodox.

For everyone - the reason that there are differences in the Canon among the apostolic Churches is because the Sixth Ecumenical council gave general and indiscriminate approval of ALL the canons of previous Councils (local, general, ecumenical) which DOCTRINALLY agreed with the decisions of the first four Ecumenical Councils. Some of these canons included lists of Scriptural books, but these lists were not all the same. The Canon of the Catholic Church is the basic set, its contents agreed upon by ALL the apostolic Churches.

Apparently, being off by a few books in the OT, especially of those books that had later approval than the proto-canonical books, was not a church-dividing issue to the early Church, and neither should it be for the present Churchin our goal towards Christian unity.

God bless,
Greg

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

GWitherow:

Apologia100 and Br. Rich SFO: you two are saying the Canon of scripture was not officially closed until 1500 (Trent). You may be right but I’ve always understood the Canon was closed in the earlier councils mentioned. However, the behavior of the Orthodox is in favor of your point.

Trent says, “And so that no doubt may arise in anyone’s mind as to which are the books that are accepted by this Synod, it has been decreed that a list of the Sacred books be added to this decree”. It then lists the books. Page 244 in Denzinger.

I think we’d have to conclude the Canon is closed.

The early councils closed the door, Trent locked it!

 

[Ghosty]

GAssisi’s post is a more informed account of what I was trying to say based on my understanding. There is a provision of acceptance of the varying Canons somewhere, and it implies that the Roman Catholic Canon is inclusive rather than exclusive. Unfortunately I’m not as informed about the matter as GAssisi apparently is. I do know, however, that the different Canons predate the Great Schism, and post-date the Councils that established the Roman Canon.

 

[GAssisi]

There is another factor we need to consider in this discussion. NOWADAYS, there is a perception, especially among Western Christians, that there is an exclusive identification between what is canonical and what is Scripture. IOW, canonical = Scripture.

However, this was not the case in the early Church, and apparently is the same mentality of the Eastern Churches today. What I am talking about is the fact that in the early Church, what was considered canonical was NOT the ONLY set of writings that was considered “Scripture.” “Ecclesiastical books” read for edification were also regarded as Scripture. The difference between a canonical book and a non-canonical book in the early Church was that canonical books were the only books of Scripture that could be used to support doctrine/dogma.

So modern Christians should not get confused if one reads in the early Church a “Canon” of Scripture that contained less books than the Catholic OT Canon, because “canonical” did not automatically and exclusively mean “Scripture” in the early Church. There were other books that were not “canonical,” but were also regarded as Holy Scripture.

God bless,
Greg

P.S. The Coptic Orthodox Church has always had the same Canon of Scripture as the Catholic Church, probably due to the geographically mediating influence of that other great African Church of Carthage.

 

[Maccabees]

Orthodox canoon?

More like Orthodox canons. The orthodox churches disagree among themselves of what the OT canon is comprised of the Coptic Orthodox have the same canon as Catholics. The Greeks have More books than we do and the Russian Orthodox have a different canon than the Greeks, The Ethopian Orthodox have more books than anyone with several books deemed apocrapah by other ORthodox and Catholics for example the Book of Enoch among others. They have a very unique OT canon.

Anyway for the most part the differing books contain little of theologcial value. The most controversil would be 2 Maccabees which is considered canonical by all Apostolic Christians since it contain the tradtion of praying for the dead that Luther used as his criteria to reject Catholic canon. Add that to the way the ORthodox as well as Catholics use holy tradtion to support its doctrine as opposed to Sola Scriptura and the necessity of having the exact same OT books is not problematic as it would be for Protestants.
As is evidenced by history and the fact differnces remain today Sola Scriptura is ahistorical the table of contents did not fall from the sky or was set in stone. It is clearly the result of each churches tradtional usuage of what it deemed worthy of liturgical reading. If it were not for the Protestants we might not have a closed canon today. In the writings of The African councils it list the canon but warned of closing the canon as well. So while the councils were authoratative they allowed for flexibility.
Only reacting to a sola scriptura mindset that aclosed canon become important. THe fact it took 1500 years to close the canon should tell it just wasn’t that important.

 

[Maccabees]

GAssisi:

P.S. The Coptic Orthodox Church has always had the same Canon of Scripture as the Catholic Church, probably due to the geographically mediating influence of that other great African Church of Carthage.

Well that is part of it. Due to the fact that Hippo and Carthage were western councils close to both Rome and Egypt the tradtion was pretty much the same. But you can also throw in the fact that Rome and the Coptics attempted to reunite at the Council of Florence in the mid 1400’s and one of the thing decided upon for reunification was the first ecnumical agreed OT and NT canon. Unfortunately other issues such as the Papacy were a far trickier issue and we are still seperated but the canon issue was settled, If not for the sola scriptura and challenge to the duetrocanonicals made by Luther it might have been the last council talking about a canon. But rome wanted to affirm a dei fide teaching to close the case once and for all.

 

[GAssisi]

Dear Maccabees,

I think your last sentence “Rome wanted to affirm…” sounds a bit triumphalistic (if that is not what you intended, forgive me). At the Council of Florence, there was no dispute about the Canon because it was discovered that the Coptic Jacobites ALREADY had the same Canon as the Catholic Church.

God bless,
Greg

 

[twf]

But before we continue, we shouldn’t just lump the “Orthodox” churches together…there are three distinct groups of Eastern apostolic churches (excluding those in full communion with Rome) that ARE NOT in full communion with each other. They are the Eastern Orthodox Churches (See oca.org/pages/orth_chri/Orthodox-Churches/index.htm for a list of the churches in this communion), the Oriental Orthodox Churches (Coptic Church of Egypt, Ethiopian Orthodox Church, Eritrean Orthodox Church, Indian or Malankara Orthodox Church, Syriac Orthodox Church, and the Armenian Apostolic Church), and the Assyrian Church of the East (not in full communion with any other church, and has been such since the 5th century). For information on all of the Easter churches see this Catholic source cnewa.org/ecc-introduction.htm