The Canon - for Eastern Orthodox

[adstrinity]

Wait, is it not that some of the “Extra/Missing” books are just appropriated differently?

 

[Nine_Two]

IF you know of another book outside of the Jewish Septuagint that Christians used for liturgy before the canon, please enlighten us.

Technically I must agree with you that the Catholic Church did not use only the Septuagint, here is why? The unauthorized books that were used in the liturgies underground, that resulted in Heretical teachings that came from the East, which were denounced and did not make the canon, were in addition to the Septuagint being used, but these were Eastern Fathers who rejected the Jewish old Testament God, and only accepted a few New Testament letters for their liturgies.

Is this the history you are referencing?

If I have insulted you, forgive me. I mean no offense. Sometimes I don’t know if one is female or male on these threads. Please forgive me if I do not share Orthodox’s schism sentiments and historical interpretations from late, as some unknowingly do. I hope what we communicate on these forums deals with facts when it comes to the Apostolic Catholic Faith and not mere opinions glossed over to appear as facts. Again forgive my Frankness if I have offended you.

Peace be with you

My point was that the Vulgate was translated from the MT wherever possible which has a number of notable differences from the LXX. All modern Catholic bibles are likewise translated from the MT wherever possible. That is all that I meant.

As for your “frankness” I’m refering to the incesentness with which you belittle the Orthodox position as mere "opinion, as well as the freaquent need to cast blame. We Orthodox refrain from using terms such as “Schismic” “Heretic” and such when describing the Catholic church, so we do ask you return the favour in kind. We know that’s what you think of us, and hey, it’s what we think of you, but if you want good relations between us, saying it every second word isn’t going to help.

 

[agent_grey]

the word of God is a man not a book.

The only tradition that views scripture as the innerant word of God is a man made tradition that has mans(6) private interpretation determining 66 books as the word of God (false Christ).

The orthodox have different needs than Catholics. Some Orthodox have 81 books.

 

[TheosisM]

So what I’ve gathered from this thread is that:

-there is no one Old Testament Canon among the Orthodox Churches, as someone stated that the Russian Church has a book or two more than the Greek Church.

-even in the Catholic Church, among Eastern Catholics, they may use varying OT Canons as well, perhaps that which is used by their Orthodox counterpart church.

-the canon defined at the Council of Trent (which mirrored the canon at early local African synods, such as Carthage) is not necessarily “The Canon”, since some Eastern Catholics apparently have more books than the Trent Canon, but is seen as the books that must be accepted as inspired. One can accept more books (such as using the entire Septuagint), but not less. The Trent Canon is therefore seen as a “minimum”, at least for [some] Eastern/Oriental Catholics.

Is this correct? If so, I am still a little wary of the “okaying” of varying Canons within the Church, even if that is how it historically been. Meaning, I’m trying to understand this phenomenon in a way besides “that’s the way it’s been historically so it’s true”. What it really is coming down to for me is-what is scripture? I guess what I’m trying to reconcile is this: the books in the Bible are inspired texts. Acceptance by the Church doesn’t necessarily make them inspired, but the author(s) of the texts were inspired themselves. Is this correct? If so, how is it possible for there to be variance in what is accepted as inspired within one Church? Part of the Church accepts this set of books as inspired scripture, and another part accepts this set of books as inspired scripture (obviously they accept a common set of books, i.e. the Trent Canon for example), regardless of whether people actually read it, its liturgical use, etc. How does one understand this issue?

 

[SingleMomMonica]

Astrinity,

I thought about the same possibility also when I first found out about the discrepency and the answer is: No. There are actual books missing from the Roman Catholic Old T.

Wait, is it not that some of the “Extra/Missing” books are just appropriated differently?

 

[SingleMomMonica]

So what I’ve gathered from this thread is that:

-there is no one Old Testament Canon among the Orthodox Churches, as someone stated that the Russian Church has a book or two more than the Greek Church.

I’m not sure this is true. My spiritual father is Russian and knows about and says he has the Orthodox Study Bible which has the same OT books as in the Septuagint (LXX).

-even in the Catholic Church, among Eastern Catholics, they may use varying OT Canons as well, perhaps that which is used by their Orthodox counterpart church.

Yes, when I attended Byzantine Catholic Churches as a Catholic I was really surprised to learn this taught from books issued by the Eastern Dioceses.

-the canon defined at the Council of Trent (which mirrored the canon at early local African synods, such as Carthage) is not necessarily “The Canon”, since some Eastern Catholics apparently have more books than the Trent Canon, but is seen as the books that must be accepted as inspired. One can accept more books (such as using the entire Septuagint), but not less. The Trent Canon is therefore seen as a “minimum”, at least for [some] Eastern/Oriental Catholics.

Maybe it’s easier to look at it this way…the Roman Catholic Code of Canon Law is different than the Eastern Catholic Code of Canon Law, and just like that the Canon of Scripture is also different. Keep in mind Canon just means “rule” or “measuring stick”

Is this correct? If so, I am still a little wary of the “okaying” of varying Canons within the Church, even if that is how it historically been. Meaning, I’m trying to understand this phenomenon in a way besides “that’s the way it’s been historically so it’s true”. What it really is coming down to for me is-what is scripture?

Scripture is a part of Holy Tradition.

I guess what I’m trying to reconcile is this: the books in the Bible are inspired texts. Acceptance by the Church doesn’t necessarily make them inspired, but the author(s) of the texts were inspired themselves. Is this correct?

The Authors of Sacred Scripture were inspired by the Holy Spirit.

If so, how is it possible for there to be variance in what is accepted as inspired within one Church?

For a Catholic it could be the same way variances in Divine Liturgy/Mass is celebrated is accepted and encouraged.

I will ask my Russian Orthodox spiritual father on Saturday if the Russian Church has a different Old Testament than the rest of the Canonically Orthodox.

The variances I have heard about are with the Non-Canonically “Orthodox” Churches, like the Ethiopians for example.

Part of the Church accepts this set of books as inspired scripture, and another part accepts this set of books as inspired scripture (obviously they accept a common set of books, i.e. the Trent Canon for example), regardless of whether people actually read it, its liturgical use, etc. How does one understand this issue?

As I Catholic who spent years in the Byzantine Rite of the Catholic Church, I had to come to realize that the Council of Trent was a Latin Rite Council and it’s decrees had to do with the Latin Rite, not the rest of the Church. The Melkite Greek Catholic Patriarch attended the Vatican II Council, but made it clear that neither it nor the Catechism of the Catholic Church were for Eastern Catholics, but were for Roman Catholics.
Basically the Churches are different, independent Churches that are in union with the Church of Rome.

 

[Byzman]

Trullo also affirmed by name the apostolic canons which gives a list of canonical books as well. AC 85 lists 3 books of Maccabees as canonical. Check out the last volume of the schaff version (the one you link to) of the fathers.

There is actually doubt if Canon 85 from the Apostolic Constitutions is even legit. In fact there is question if Canons 51-85 are legitimate at all. Popes throughout time have never recognized any of Canons 51-85.

newadvent.org/cathen/03279a.htm

 

[Nine_Two]

There is actually doubt if Canon 85 from the Apostolic Constitutions is even legit. In fact there is question if Canons 51-85 are legitimate at all. Popes throughout time have never recognized any of Canons 51-85.

newadvent.org/cathen/03279a.htm

Welcome back to the thread, any chance you’ll answer my question as posted in post 81? If you interprete Trent to be denouncing the use of additional books in the bible, then how do you reconcile this to your sister Catholic Churches which utilize them?

 

[Byzman]

Welcome back to the thread, any chance you’ll answer my question as posted in post 81? If you interprete Trent to be denouncing the use of additional books in the bible, then how do you reconcile this to your sister Catholic Churches which utilize them?

Ok…I will try to answer this to the best of my ability…First off, I will say that I do not consider anyone who uses additional books of the Bible that are found in the Septuagint but not found in the Vulgate as heretics. So…no…I do not consider anyone from the Eastern Catholic or Orthodox Churches heretics. I, myself, am Byzantine Catholic in which I use the Orthodox Study Bible(because of it containing the Septuagint) as well as the Catholic Editions of the Bible(RSV). I think that the Eastern Catholic Churches that use the Septuagint is only for it being in the, or translated from the Greek…our official language, in which our liturgical and spiritual life is formulated from. Sometimes when listening to liturgical prayers and other prayers you can see that it comes from the Septuagint rather than the Hewbrew. This is why us Eastern Catholic Churches should also read from the Greek Version. Plus why should we not look at the Original Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament when we want a better understanding of certain words, being that our tradtion derives from the Greek.

Now with the Council of Trent…I do not know if the Canon of Scripture was formally closed…but I am of the opinion that it has been closed. The heretics are those who deny that the Books of the Bible are less than the ones defined at Trent, saying that only 66 Books are inspired. Not accepting the additional books with their “whole and entire parts” from the Canon defined at Trent are the ones who should be deemed heretics.

To summarize we Greek Catholics should use the Septuagint as our basis for studying scripture…even if it includes extra books not found in the Catholic Canon…and when you reject the Catholic Canon, as to take away from the Canon listed at Trent, than one can be deemed a heretic. If the Canon is not officially closed…who knows maybe when the Orthodox Churches return home…than maybe the Canon could be expanded.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Ok…I will try to answer this to the best of my ability…First off, I will say that I do not consider anyone who uses additional books of the Bible that are found in the Septuagint but not found in the Vulgate as heretics. So…no…I do not consider anyone from the Eastern Catholic or Orthodox Churches heretics. I, myself, am Byzantine Catholic in which I use the Orthodox Study Bible(because of it containing the Septuagint) as well as the Catholic Editions of the Bible(RSV). I think that the Eastern Catholic Churches that use the Septuagint is only for it being in the, or translated from the Greek…our official language, in which our liturgical and spiritual life is formulated from. Sometimes when listening to liturgical prayers and other prayers you can see that it comes from the Septuagint rather than the Hewbrew. This is why us Eastern Catholic Churches should also read from the Greek Version. Plus why should we not look at the Original Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament when we want a better understanding of certain words, being that our tradtion derives from the Greek.

Now with the Council of Trent…I do not know if the Canon of Scripture was formally closed…but I am of the opinion that it has been closed. The heretics are those who deny that the Books of the Bible are less than the ones defined at Trent, saying that only 66 Books are inspired. Not accepting the additional books with their “whole and entire parts” from the Canon defined at Trent are the ones who should be deemed heretics.

To summarize we Greek Catholics should use the Septuagint as our basis for studying scripture…even if it includes extra books not found in the Catholic Canon…and when you reject the Catholic Canon, as to take away from the Canon listed at Trent, than one can be deemed a heretic. If the Canon is not officially closed…who knows maybe when the Orthodox Churches return home…than maybe the Canon could be expanded.

I would just like to compliment you on your good comentary here. If you would allow me to clarify somethings from a latin Catholic. Trent does not label anyone a “heretic” if one of her believers removes or rejects any of the canonized books. Trent excommunicates those faithful who willingly refuse to accept the canon including the deutero books. Let us be clear in the language.

I dont believe ; If those additional books used in Orthodox and or Eastern liturgies, that are not in the canon does not apply to the Trent “anathema’s”. For Orthodoxy community and language if these books are used in liturgies does not make them as approved for the Whole church. I believe clarification between what is canon, and which Orthodox and or Eastern Church wishes to use their additional books for their local community, does not make them canon for the whole Catholic community.

I believe Byzman has cleared up alot of incorrect preconcieved notions about what is canon and what is Traditional Orthodoxy. Thank you Byzman for laying my concious at ease here. I feared the orginal canon of scripture for the entire Catholic church was being attacked again from false pretenses.

I would agree Let the Orthodox and Eastern Church’s remain in their Apostolic Traditions of language and culture, so long as it does not go against the whole of the Apostolic Catholic Faith.

Your perspective makes a whole lot more sense. Thank you

 

[Nine_Two]

Ok…I will try to answer this to the best of my ability…First off, I will say that I do not consider anyone who uses additional books of the Bible that are found in the Septuagint but not found in the Vulgate as heretics. So…no…I do not consider anyone from the Eastern Catholic or Orthodox Churches heretics. I, myself, am Byzantine Catholic in which I use the Orthodox Study Bible(because of it containing the Septuagint) as well as the Catholic Editions of the Bible(RSV). I think that the Eastern Catholic Churches that use the Septuagint is only for it being in the, or translated from the Greek…our official language, in which our liturgical and spiritual life is formulated from. Sometimes when listening to liturgical prayers and other prayers you can see that it comes from the Septuagint rather than the Hewbrew. This is why us Eastern Catholic Churches should also read from the Greek Version. Plus why should we not look at the Original Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament when we want a better understanding of certain words, being that our tradtion derives from the Greek.

Now with the Council of Trent…I do not know if the Canon of Scripture was formally closed…but I am of the opinion that it has been closed. The heretics are those who deny that the Books of the Bible are less than the ones defined at Trent, saying that only 66 Books are inspired. Not accepting the additional books with their “whole and entire parts” from the Canon defined at Trent are the ones who should be deemed heretics.

To summarize we Greek Catholics should use the Septuagint as our basis for studying scripture…even if it includes extra books not found in the Catholic Canon…and when you reject the Catholic Canon, as to take away from the Canon listed at Trent, than one can be deemed a heretic. If the Canon is not officially closed…who knows maybe when the Orthodox Churches return home…than maybe the Canon could be expanded.

My apologies, after reading this I went back and reread what you posted before. Crazzeto put me in defensive mode. Sorry for completely misunderstanding and taking what you said out of context.

 

[crazzeto]

My apologies, after reading this I went back and reread what you posted before. Crazzeto put me in defensive mode. Sorry for completely misunderstanding and taking what you said out of context.

Sorry for putting you in defensive mode, I wasn’t so much trying to attack Eastern Usage of the extra books, as try to quantify on what basis an Easterner can attempt to make the claim that the Western Church at any point in time “removed books from the bible”. I already have my answer to that question, they can’t and if they do they need to go back and restudy history.

Edit
Though I will admit to being suprrised with regard to the initial responses I got… “It doesn’t matter” just wasn’t anything I was expecting to hear any Catholic or Orthodox Christian say.

 

[Byzman]

Sorry for putting you in defensive mode, I wasn’t so much trying to attack Eastern Usage of the extra books, as try to quantify on what basis an Easterner can attempt to make the claim that the Western Church at any point in time “removed books from the bible”. I already have my answer to that question, they can’t and if they do they need to go back and restudy history.

Edit
Though I will admit to being suprrised with regard to the initial responses I got… “It doesn’t matter” just wasn’t anything I was expecting to hear any Catholic or Orthodox Christian say.

Well actually…I would like to say something on this matter also. From reading some of the things that I have been reading, with respect to the canon, it almost appears to me as if the Canon of Scripture is determined through the usage of the books that are read in the liturgy or used for teaching. In the early church when the Fathers would speak of the Canon they would give a list of books and mention what churches dispute them or what churches accept them. To me that becomes a matter of how things are read traditionally. Some books of the deuterocanonical were read, while others served only as a tool for instructing. So as time went on, the Latin Church most definitively wanted to include all the books that are most particular to be read in their churches or taught in their churches. So what I am trying to say is that 3 Maccabees and 1 Esdras was not read as much in the early church in the Latin Churches, so it would make sense for them to leave out these extra books of the Septuagint from the Canon of the Latin Church. It all depends on how the tradition of the Churches evolved from languauge and liturgy.