The Canon - for Eastern Orthodox

[crazzeto]

So, here is something I’ve been wondering about but have yet to find any good information on. In the Western Tradition the Canon of Scripture was officially set by the Counsole of Hippo, and was reaffiremd many times prior to the East / West Schism. I can only assume that due to the number of Ecumenical Cousoles which affirmed 73 books in the bible, that at least for some time the Eastern Church must have been using the same 73 books.

It is my understanding that the Eastern Tradition is now set at 76 books. So my question is, what gives? I thought that at least most Eastern Churches accepted the cousoles prior to about 1,000 AD. The Cannon was set well before then, so where are the extra books coming from?

If anyone has any information regarding this it would be appriciated. All I’ve been able to find thus far are links to download a copy of a bible from the Greek Orthodox, and it says it’s translated based upon the … 1901? Or some such year tradition. I’m assuming the canon wasn’t changed then though. Thanks

 

[SingleMomMonica]

Hi Crazzeto,

Yes Orthodox Christians have 49 books in the Old Testament and 27 books in the New Testament for a total of 76 books of Sacred Scripture.

This is because Orthodox Christians use for the basis of the Old Testament the complete Septuagint (LXX) as was originally translated via a miracle into Greek by the “Seventy” about 200 years before Christ Jesus was born. Orthodox use this for the simple reason it is what Jesus used. It was used by all Jews from the time of Translation until after the Final Destruction of the Temple about 40 yrs after Jesus’ Resurrection.

I’ve never understood why or when Catholics removed a few books from the Old Testament. Perhaps you can enlighten me on that.

I do have an understanding of why Martin Luther removed 7 additional books from the Old Testament.

I think that the Oriental Christians use books in addition to the Septuagint (LXX) like the book of Enoch. I’m not sure how they justify that?

As far as Christian Councils are concerned, I believe they only addressed what books were to be added to the Septuagint (LXX) in the form of the New Testament. It was decided that only 27 books would be the New Testament.

I believe that this is what all Christians have in common…the 27 books of the New Testament.

Monica

So, here is something I’ve been wondering about but have yet to find any good information on. In the Western Tradition the Canon of Scripture was officially set by the Counsole of Hippo, and was reaffiremd many times prior to the East / West Schism. I can only assume that due to the number of Ecumenical Cousoles which affirmed 73 books in the bible, that at least for some time the Eastern Church must have been using the same 73 books.

It is my understanding that the Eastern Tradition is now set at 76 books. So my question is, what gives? I thought that at least most Eastern Churches accepted the cousoles prior to about 1,000 AD. The Cannon was set well before then, so where are the extra books coming from?

If anyone has any information regarding this it would be appriciated. All I’ve been able to find thus far are links to download a copy of a bible from the Greek Orthodox, and it says it’s translated based upon the … 1901? Or some such year tradition. I’m assuming the canon wasn’t changed then though. Thanks

 

[crazzeto]

Hi Crazzeto,

Yes Orthodox Christians have 49 books in the Old Testament and 27 books in the New Testament for a total of 76 books of Sacred Scripture.

This is because Orthodox Christians use for the basis of the Old Testament the complete Septuagint (LXX) as was originally translated via a miracle into Greek by the “Seventy” about 200 years before Christ Jesus was born. Orthodox use this for the simple reason it is what Jesus used. It was used by all Jews from the time of Translation until after the Final Destruction of the Temple about 40 yrs after Jesus’ Resurrection.

I’ve never understood why or when Catholics removed a few books from the Old Testament. Perhaps you can enlighten me on that.

I do have an understanding of why Martin Luther removed 7 additional books from the Old Testament.

I think that the Oriental Christians use books in addition to the Septuagint (LXX) like the book of Enoch. I’m not sure how they justify that?

As far as Christian Councils arew concerned, I believe they only addressed what books were to be added to the Septuagint (LXX) in the form of the New Testament. It was decided that only 27 books would be the New Testament.

I believe that this is what all Christians have in common…the 27 books of the New Testament.

Monica

There’s enough on the internet regarding the canon, so you might be best served doing some google searchings. But the short version is that the Synod of Hippo (sorry I called it a counsole earlier) first defined the Canon of Scripture, this Canon matches exactly the books found in the Western Tradition, this exact canon was again affirmed at the Cousole of Carthiage, and several more times prior to the Great Schism. The very last time the Western Canon was (again) affirmed was in response to Protestantism, which again affirmed what was decided in Hippo, Carthiage and else where.

This is why I’m wondering why the E. Orthoodx Canon is different, there are a great many Consoles, prior to 1054 which affirmed 73 books.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

I’m not sure if your spellling reflects that you are getting your information from bad sites or if you, like many of us here, accidentally are hitting the wrong keys.

There were 7 Ecumenical Councils…this means they were accepted by the entire Church…which of these are you claiming addressed the Canon of both the Old and New Testaments? Please clarify.

You are correct the Synod of Hippo was just a local synod or council…it was Not Ecumenical.

Thanks.

There’s enough on the internet regarding the canon, so you might be best served doing some google searchings. But the short version is that the Synod of Hippo (sorry I called it a counsole earlier) first defined the Canon of Scripture, this Canon matches exactly the books found in the Western Tradition, this exact canon was again affirmed at the Cousole of Carthiage, and several more times prior to the Great Schism. The very last time the Western Canon was (again) affirmed was in response to Protestantism, which again affirmed what was decided in Hippo, Carthiage and else where.

This is why I’m wondering why the E. Orthoodx Canon is different, there are a great many Consoles, prior to 1054 which affirmed 73 books.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

So, here is something I’ve been wondering about but have yet to find any good information on. In the Western Tradition the Canon of Scripture was officially set by the Counsole of Hippo, and was reaffiremd many times prior to the East / West Schism. I can only assume that due to the number of Ecumenical Cousoles which affirmed 73 books in the bible, that at least for some time the Eastern Church must have been using the same 73 books.

It is my understanding that the Eastern Tradition is now set at 76 books. So my question is, what gives? I thought that at least most Eastern Churches accepted the cousoles prior to about 1,000 AD. The Cannon was set well before then, so where are the extra books coming from?

If anyone has any information regarding this it would be appriciated. All I’ve been able to find thus far are links to download a copy of a bible from the Greek Orthodox, and it says it’s translated based upon the … 1901? Or some such year tradition. I’m assuming the canon wasn’t changed then though. Thanks

Well, typically, Catholics look at common tomes with the title “Bible” sold to Protestants and note that it has 66 books in it. Then they look to the tomes by the same publishers targeted to Catholic purchasers and note that such has 73 books in it. So, they conclude Protestants MUST have taken out some books - thus all the threads, “Why did Protestants Remove Books from the Bible?” Well, if they looked at the ones targeted to Eastern Orthodox purchasers, they find MORE books (and an additional psalm) - and yet they don’t post, "Why did The Catholic Church Remove Books from the Bible?’ And if they looked at tomes marketed to the Oriental Orthodox, well- shock again, there’s even MORE books there! And yet - where are the threads, “Why Did The Catholic Church Remove Books from The Bible?”

The reality seems to be…

1. There is a great, historic, ecumenical embrace around 39 OT books and 27 NT books. In all of Christianity.
2. There are an addition dozen or so books, all before Christ, often called DEUTERO books (the meaning of that word says much!). These are very rarely quoted from, and at most one doctrine stems from such. One set of DEUTERO books is accepted by tradition (informally) by the Oriental Orthodox. Another unique and smaller set is accepted by common consensus by the Eastern Orthodox. And another unique and smaller set is accepted by action of the Council of Trent by The Catholic Church. The three that accept these (in one way or another) don’t agree with each other.

Now, there are those that simply take no formal stance on these disputed books. Lutheranism, for example, formally embraces the 66 undisputed ones but takes no stance on the unque sets of the OO, EO and CC. Until the 20th century, Lutherans included the unique CC set in our tomes (as Luther did in his German translation). Luther, the Lutheran Church Fathers and The Lutheran Confessions quote from these unique CC deutero books - but never referencing them as “Scripture.”

The Anglican Church has a little different twist. Like Lutherans, Anglicans continued the unique RCC “set” of these disputed DEUTERO books. But unlike Lutherans, they continued to inlcude them in the Lectionary, and unlike Lutherans, it DID take an official stand on them - giving them high status but not equal to the other undisputed 66.

Calvinism largely rejected them. Much of “second” wave Protestantism and what followed largely just ignored them.

.

 

[crazzeto]

I’m not sure if your spellling reflects that you are getting your information from bad sites or if you, like many of us here, accidentally are hitting the wrong keys.

There were 7 Ecumenical Councils…this means they were accepted by the entire Church…which of these are you claiming addressed the Canon of both the Old and New Testaments? Please clarify.

You are correct the Synod of Hippo was just a local synod or council…it was Not Ecumenical.

Thanks.

Sorry, I’m refering to the Council of Carthage in 397 which agreed with the Synod of hippo and this same canon would be affirmed again and again. I’m just curious which council the eastern tradition follows, if any.

 

[adstrinity]

What are the books the Orthodox (Eastern & Oriental) have that Catholics do not?

 

[Nine_Two]

Sorry, I’m refering to the Council of Carthage in 397 which agreed with the Synod of hippo and this same canon would be affirmed again and again. I’m just curious which council the eastern tradition follows, if any.

Probably because those councils are not considered to be Ecumenical, that is binding on the whole of the Church.

We believe that every Church is free to determine its onw scripture, so long as it does not accept anything whichg is considered heretical. You give clear evidence that this was the Catholic teaching pre-schism.

 

[crazzeto]

Probably because those councils are not considered to be Ecumenical, that is binding on the whole of the Church.

We believe that every Church is free to determine its onw scripture, so long as it does not accept anything whichg is considered heretical. You give clear evidence that this was the Catholic teaching pre-schism.

So are you saying each church, individually is making this choice?

Edit
And how are these Churchs making the determination that certain books aren’t heretical… Of course from my perspective the problem extend beyond this. The bible is the inspired word of God, i.e. God is the author. Being “not heretical” isn’t good enough, it need to legitimatlly be the inspired word of God. For instance at Carthage (and Hippo, and other times) there were books which were determained “profitable for reading”, but not inspired thus they aren’t in the compiliation of Sacrade Scripture.

 

[bpbasilphx]

I believe the Russian canon has a book or two extra that the Greek Churches usually do not use.

But that’s minor.

The issue of the OT canon was never a matter for an Ecumenical Council. Only after the Reformation did it become an issue in the West, which Trent deal with more by reaction.

One of the disputed books, the Prayer of Manasseh, has liturgical use in Great Compline, a service which is done on Weekdays in Great Lent and eves of Christmas and Theophany.

Psalm 151 is included in the Liturgical Psalter, but it is NEVER read in services.

Just passing along those two tidbits.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

Sorry, I’m refering to the Council of Carthage in 397 which agreed with the Synod of hippo and this same canon would be affirmed again and again. I’m just curious which council the eastern tradition follows, if any.

The council or synod of Carthage was not an Ecumenical Council, it was a local council.

 

[josephdaniel29]

It is my understanding that the Eastern Tradition is now set at 76 books. So my question is, what gives? I thought that at least most Eastern Churches accepted the cousoles prior to about 1,000 AD. The Cannon was set well before then, so where are the extra books coming from?

What difference does it make?

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[josephdaniel29]

Well, typically, Catholics look at common tomes with the title “Bible” sold to Protestants and note that it has 66 books in it. Then they look to the tomes by the same publishers targeted to Catholic purchasers and note that such has 73 books in it. So, they conclude Protestants MUST have taken out some books - thus all the threads, “Why did Protestants Remove Books from the Bible?” Well, if they looked at the ones targeted to Eastern Orthodox purchasers, they find MORE books (and an additional psalm) - and yet they don’t post, "Why did The Catholic Church Remove Books from the Bible?’ And if they looked at tomes marketed to the Oriental Orthodox, well- shock again, there’s even MORE books there! And yet - where are the threads, “Why Did The Catholic Church Remove Books from The Bible?”

That’s actually a really good point.

Just goes to show how much we view the world through the colored glasses of our own experience.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[TheosisM]

What difference does it make?

Yours in Christ
Joe

As someone considering Orthodoxy, I find this to be a very interesting OP. The Canon is made up of books that we believe are inspired, right? So, if the Orthodox have more books than the Catholics, that means that Catholics, in theory, are missing inspired books. But someone earlier said that each church decides for themselves the Canon, and the Russian church(es) has a book or two more than the Greek church(es). If this is true, how is this possible in the same Orthodox Church?

 

[crazzeto]

As someone considering Orthodoxy, I find this to be a very interesting OP. The Canon is made up of books that we believe are inspired, right? So, if the Orthodox have more books than the Catholics, that means that Catholics, in theory, are missing inspired books. But someone earlier said that each church decides for themselves the Canon, and the Russian church(es) has a book or two more than the Greek church(es). If this is true, how is this possible in the same Orthodox Church?

At least from my perspective, this is a pretty big deal. The Bible isn’t mearly a collection of books which are good for Christian’s to read. They’re the collection of books of which God is the principal author.

I’ve noticed the Orthodox are claiming Carthage wasn’t Ecumenical, but certainly in the Catholic tradition we disagree with that. More over, we view the Canon of scripture as being a critical issue.

Lets take a issue that may seem irrelivent today (but the way things are going culturally, who knows maybe everything old is new again). In the early Church it was expected that Christians would give their lives not only for the belief of the faith, but also to defend the sacrade scriptures them selves. Many of the early persecutions included not only the burning of Christians, but also the burning of everything Christian in an effort to utterly annihilate the faith.

So this brings up an important issue, which books should Christians be giving their lives to defend? Which books are merely profitable for reading, and which should be venerated as the inspired word of God.

I can’t say I’m very comfortable with the idea that every church will on their own decide.

 

[josephdaniel29]

As someone considering Orthodoxy, I find this to be a very interesting OP. The Canon is made up of books that we believe are inspired, right? So, if the Orthodox have more books than the Catholics, that means that Catholics, in theory, are missing inspired books. But someone earlier said that each church decides for themselves the Canon, and the Russian church(es) has a book or two more than the Greek church(es). If this is true, how is this possible in the same Orthodox Church?

I would say that which books may or may not be included in the Canon is not that important. Scripture reflects the living Apostolic Tradition of the Church. It is not in and of itself a source of doctrine.

You have to remember, the early Church was not centrally governed like the modern Roman Catholic Church. The local Churches had a lot of leeway in setting their Biblical Canons as long as it didn’t violate either their local synods or any Ecumenical Councils. You see the result and evidence of that today in the fact that there are some variances in canons between the Catholic, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[crazzeto]

So I take it then, that the Orthodox do not regard the bible as the Inspired Word of God then? That seems to be the only conclusion I can draw from “The Canon doesn’t matter”

 

[josephdaniel29]

So this brings up an important issue, which books should Christians be giving their lives to defend? Which books are merely profitable for reading, and which should be venerated as the inspired word of God.

I would hope that Christians would be giving their lives to defend the faith, not a set of books.

If you are not comfortable with local Churches having a certain amount of freedom to set their canons then you have little faith in the Life of the Holy Spirit in the Church. The Bible is not the faith my friend. I can certainly see why many Eastern Christians say that Catholics and Protestants are two sides of the same coin.

Also, perhaps one of our Eastern Catholic brethren can tell us if they follow the Latin canon or the Orthodox (or something else).

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[crazzeto]

I would hope that Christians would be giving their lives to defend the faith, not a set of books.

It’s not just any old set of books though is it? Briefly from the CCC:

God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."69

Does the Orthodox Church Agree or Disagree, if it disagree’s then are you saying then that SS is not a part of the Deposite of faith? Is the orthodox postion then, Sola-Fama (sorry if my latin is off, was trying to forumlate something using an online-dictonary since I don’t know the language), or tradition alone?

Seeing as certainly, early christians viewed the scriptures as the inspired word of God, it’s quite logical that they gave their lives for it. Particularly when faced with complete exterimation on the part of the Roman Empire.

If you are not comfortable with local Churches having a certain amount of freedom to set their canons then you have little faith in the Life of the Holy Spirit in the Church. The Bible is not the faith my friend. I can certainly see why many Eastern Christians say that Catholics and Protestants are two sides of the same coin.

That’s a rather rude suggestion on your part, I would argue that there is One Holy Apistolic Church. That one Holy, Catholic and Apistolic Church was promised (and indeed received) the Spirit, which guides it’s Magisterium.

Also, perhaps one of our Eastern Catholic brethren can tell us if they follow the Latin canon or the Orthodox (or something else).

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[SingleMomMonica]

So I take it then, that the Orthodox do not regard the bible as the Inspired Word of God then? That seems to be the only conclusion I can draw from “The Canon doesn’t matter”

The Orthodox do believe the Bible is the Inspired Word of God.

I haven’t seen your response though, why did the Catholics remove a few of the books of the Old Testament Septuagint (LXX)?