Turning the tide. Answering Orthodox on Bible Canon?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Onthisrock84
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
steve-b said:
Likewise the order of the writings of the New and eternal Testament, which the holy and Catholic Church supports. Of the Gospels, according to Matthew one book, according to Mark one book, according to Luke one book, according to John one book.
Click to expand...
I have 2 questions, if I may?
Does the Catholic Church declare that Matthew is earlier than Mark?

On Psalm 151, I heard that it was originally believed that it was written in Greek and thus they didn’t think it was truly written by David whereas after the Dead Sea Scrolls it was confirmed that it was an early Psalm but now it is too late to include?

Thanks for any education on these questions!
 
Pattylt said:
40.png
steve-b:
Likewise the order of the writings of the New and eternal Testament, which the holy and Catholic Church supports. Of the Gospels, according to Matthew one book, according to Mark one book, according to Luke one book, according to John one book.
Click to expand...
I have 2 questions, if I may?
Does the Catholic Church declare that Matthew is earlier than Mark?

On Psalm 151, I heard that it was originally believed that it was written in Greek and thus they didn’t think it was truly written by David whereas after the Dead Sea Scrolls it was confirmed that it was an early Psalm but now it is too late to include?

Thanks for any education on these questions!
Click to expand...
  1. Consider the following Re: dates of the Gospels Who’s on First? Matthew, Mark, or Luke? | Catholic Answers
  2. Re: Psalm 151, consider http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12533a.htm
 
ServusDei1 said:
The Catholic canon is the same as that of Nicea and Trent. The Orthodox wadn’t as legalistic as Rome and continued using some of the older books. They may consider certain books inspired but not canonical.
Click to expand...
The canon approved ultimately came down to which texts had been used liturgically; it was not a rejection of the others.

But along the lines of what you wrote, it would generally be difficult to get the Orthodox all that excited about someone else’s different list. That type of exactitude is western, not eastern, thinking. (E.g.: West: there are seven sacraments. East: there are at least seven sacraments. Or the west will tell you the moment of the change during the consecration. Give a list of candidates to the east, and ask which one , and the reply is “yes”)

hawk
 
Yes. However I think the Canon in the west didn’t become a huge issue until the Protestant revolution made it necessary. Before that Vulgates included at times other books. As I posted before the Prayer of Manasseh and 3 and 4 Esdras( are different in numbering in all traditions but I am using numbering in Vulgate)are in an appendix to the Clementine Vulgate of 1598. Also Psalm 151 was included in it at times as was 3 Maccabees. Thus it hasn’t always been as cut and dry.
I just think it is a disservice that Catholics are always touting how they have the true Canon and Protestants are missing books and the two are arguing over it, yet noone seems to ever say, " yes but the Orthodox have more inspired books in their Bibles than Protestants or Catholics.
 
Onthisrock84 said:
yet noone seems to ever say, " yes but the Orthodox have more inspired books in their Bibles than Protestants or Catholics.
Click to expand...
Ive seen it here on CAF many times from Catholics, Orthodox and Protestant types.

Peace!!!
 
That is a great article.
Yah I just notice it seems in America especially it’s always the question " why Catholic and Protestant Bibles differ, why do Catholics have more books?" And I just thought it was interesting when I received the NRSV w deuterocanonical books and came to find that the Eastern Orthodox Church actually includes more books than Catholics.
I wanted this version opposed to the CE because it includes 1 and 2 Esdras ( 3 and 4 Esdras in Vulgate) and the Prayer of Manasseh, which are in an appendix of the Latin Vulgate and were also in early versions of the Douay Rheims Bible but following the Challoner Revision have not been in them since 1752 publications which I find as unfortunate. They are viewed as " good for reading but not for making doctrine", the same way Protestants view all of the deuterocanonical books including these three.
I wish Catholic Bibles returned the appendix stating they are not canon but have a long history in the Church and are used in liturgy.
It isn’t unheard of. Actually 4 Maccabees is in an appendix to the Greek Orthodox Bible.
 
That’s a good Orthodox Study Bible however I have read some people complain that 4 Maccabees is not present in its appendix.
The Eastern Orthodox Bible will be released soon. The New Testament is already available actually.
 
Do you know what translation of the New Testament that the Eastern Orthodox Bible uses?

ZP
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top