What do you think of this Bible Cannon History from the EO Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter firstmode
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

firstmode

Guest
orthodoxstudybible.com/index.php/articles/who_decides/

The Orthodox Study Bible
home about features articles samples order
Who Decides?
Unraveling the Mystery of the Old Testament Canon

by Daniel Lieuwen

When the Church began, there were no New Testament books. Old Testament texts alone were used as Scripture. The Old Testament used in the early Church throughout the Roman world was not the Hebrew Old Testament, but a translation of the Old Testament into Greek called the Septuagint (LXX). The LXX was translated in Alexandria during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus in the middle of the third century B.C., and was the standard Old Testament in the synagogues throughout the Hellenistic world (including Palestine) at the time of Christ.

In addition to the books included in a Protestant Old Testament, the LXX contained a number of other books now commonly referred to as Apocrypha or Deuterocanonical. Some of these books are Tobit, Judith, Maccabees, and a longer version of Daniel.

The LXX is based on a very different text of the Old Testament from the Masoretic text, on which modern English translations are based. For instance, in many places the wording is quite different, and the content of the books also differs—generally the LXX text is longer, but there are also interesting additions to the Masoretic text that are not found in the LXX. The text on which the LXX is based is as ancient as the Masoretic text, as testified by the Dead Sea scrolls and many other ancient witnesses.
A Standardized Jewish Text

Judaism was quite fluid at the time of Christ. There were seven distinct sects of the Jews in the early first century, according to Eusebius. The different sects accepted the authority of different collections of books (e.g., the Sadducees and Samaritans accepted only the five books of the Prophet Moses, the Torah), and there were often significant differences in the composition of the books they accepted in common. Sometimes the same sect might even make use of multiple text bases, or as scholars call them, text traditions. For example, the Dead Sea scrolls, containing the sacred texts of the Essene sect of Judaism, show evidence of the Masoretic, Samaritan, and LXX text bases.

However, with the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, an intense standardization process began. Only the Pharisee and the Samaritan sects of Judaism survived this process. The collection of Old Testament books into what eventually became the Masoretic text was begun by the Pharisees at the Council of Jamnia, somewhere between AD 80 and 100, but was not completed until the sixth century. During this period, The Wisdom of Sirach, which was eventually excluded from the Masoretic text, was sometimes included in the Jewish canon, while Proverbs, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, and Esther, all of which eventually found a place in that text, were sometimes excluded.

The Pharisees wanted a standardized Hebrew text of the Old Testament partly because of the large number of Christian Jews. The older LXX version of the Old Testament contained many messianic passages that the Christians could use to convince Jews that Jesus was the Messiah. In fact, the early Christians charged that the Pharisees had deliberately truncated the canon to avoid messianic prophecy pointing toward Jesus Christ (see Justin Martyr, Trypho 71–73).

For instance, Isaiah 7:14 in the LXX says, “A virgin shall conceive and bear a son”—this clearly refers to the Virgin Birth of the Messiah. On the other hand, the Pharisees’ version of Isaiah found in the Masoretic text only mentions a “young woman.” Moreover, many of the wisdom texts from the Deuterocanonical books, particularly Sirach, were commonly used by the Church as catechetical reading for converts. It is not surprising that the Pharisees would want to exclude these “Church texts” from their official Hebrew version of the Old Testament.
 
Since the Jews had never set an exact limit on the number of books in the Old Testament, it was not inconsistent with their own faith for the Pharisees to limit the books they wanted to include in their revised Hebrew canon. Like the early Church, the Jews of Christ’s time were not united around a particular set of texts (beyond the Torah, that is). They were organized around a liturgical life in the temple and synagogue. For this liturgical life, they came to use texts in the services. However, the liturgical life preceded the production of the texts and formed their context. Historically, as the Jewish faith developed in the synagogues and in temple worship during the postexilic period (the four to five hundred years preceding the coming of Messiah), texts came to be used in worship (e.g., the Psalms) and teaching. As mentioned above, the exact collection of texts varied depending on the sect.

However, with the loss of their center in Jerusalem and of unified temple worship (after AD 70), preserving the Jewish faith required greater standardization. The Jews could no longer afford divisions if they were to survive as a people. Thus, they needed a collection of unproblematic texts to use in their now dispersed population and synagogue-only worship. They needed to eliminate the use within their communities of texts useful to those whom they considered heretics (e.g., Christians, Gnostics, and Hellenizers). Particularly, they did not want to use in their services texts that the Christians could use to demonstrate that Jesus Christ is the Messiah promised by the Prophets of the Old Testament. The canon, or list of accepted texts, that the Jews produced as their standard is significantly shorter than the LXX and came to be known as the Masoretic text.
What Is the Christian Old Testament?

This distinction between the Jewish version of the Old Testament (Hebrew Masoretic text) and the Christian version of the Old Testament (Greek LXX) would not have been a serious concern for the Church if it hadn’t been for the growing separation of the Latin-speaking Church in the Western Roman Empire from the Greek-speaking Church in the East. In the fifth century, St. Jerome produced what became the standard Latin version of the Old Testament. However, instead of basing his translation on the LXX, St. Jerome moved to Jerusalem, lived with a Jewish family to learn Hebrew, and translated the Old Testament based on an early version of the Masoretic text.

Jerome’s translation, together with a translation of the New Testament into Latin, came to be called the Vulgate and included most of the Deuterocanonical, or Apocryphal, books of the Old Testament, but separated them from the rest. It also preserved many of the Christological prophecies which later versions of the Masoretic text omit. But because it was based on a text tradition different from that of the LXX, significant differences between the Vulgate Old Testament and the LXX are evident.

Throughout the Middle Ages, the Latin Vulgate was the standard translation of the Old Testament used in the West, while the LXX remained the standard in the East. While the New Testament of the earliest versions of the Vulgate is very similar to the Greek New Testament used by the Eastern Churches, the Old Testaments differed somewhat. But this did not present a significant problem for the Church at that time.

The Western Council of Hippo (393) was probably the first council to specify the limits of the New Testament canon, and it accepted the twenty-seven–book canon that we have today, allowing only these books to be read in church under the name of “canonical writings.” The discussion of the limits of the New Testament canon continued for centuries, but by the early sixth century, nearly all Christians recognized only the twenty-seven books in our current New Testament as canonical. (To this day, the Nestorians recognize a twenty-two–book subset and the Ethiopians a superset of the New Testament.)

The canon of the Old Testament books, on the other hand, has never been clearly decided or closed by the Church. It is clear from the quotations from the Old Testament by the New Testament writers and other very early Christian witnesses that the preferred and almost exclusive version of the Old Testament for the earliest Christians was the LXX. However, the books cited as Scripture vary widely even among the New Testament writers. For example, St. Jude, the stepbrother of the Lord, in his canonical New Testament letter cites the apocryphal Book of Enoch. Today, the only Christian group to include Enoch in the canon of the Old Testament is the Ethiopian Coptics.
In fact, differences in Old Testament canons exist among most major Christian groups in spite of a common New Testament canon. Most Protestants reject the Deuterocanonical books completely. The Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox lists of accepted Deuterocanonical books differ (the Greek list is longer). There are even slight differences between the Russian Orthodox and Greek Orthodox versions of the Old Testament. However, these distinctions are irrelevant to most English-speaking Christians, because most Bibles published in English omit the Deutero-canonical books completely.
The Protestant Canon
 
Most Bibles that are available in North America today are published by Protestants; consequently, the Old Testaments in these Bibles are translations based on the Jewish Masoretic text and omit the Deutero-canonical books. The historical reasons for this appear almost accidental, and most English-speaking Christians are unaware of them.

The Protestant Reformers’ emphasis on original languages (coming out of their Renaissance heritage) led most of the Reformers to insist on using the Old Testament canon available to them in Hebrew, which had become standard among the Jews (the Masoretic text). During the late Middle Ages, the Germans and Englishmen who began to translate the Bible into “the language of the people” were ignorant of the importance of the LXX (or in some cases even completely ignorant of its existence). They assumed that the Hebrew Masoretic text used by the European Jews of their day was more authentic than the Latin Vulgate, which in their mind was tainted by its association with the Latin Church based in Rome.

Although modern English translations of the Old Testament take into consideration the LXX and other text traditions, they have continued to rely principally on the Masoretic tradition. This has led to the sometimes embarrassing situation of an English Bible in which the New Testament quotations of the Old Testament are very different from the supposed “original” found in the Old Testament translation included in the same Bible.

For example, the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible has Paul quoting Isaiah as saying, “He who believes in him [Messiah] will not be put to shame” (Romans 9:33). The footnote in the New Oxford Annotated edition of the NRSV refers the reader to Isaiah 28:16, which reads only, “One who trusts will not panic.”

Just as the Protestant acceptance of the Masoretic text of the Old Testament had little to do with theology, the Protestant omission of the Deuterocanonical books from the Old Testament has very little to do with theology, although in the past hundred years or so it has taken on theological significance among many Protestant groups.

Until the mid-nineteenth century, most Protestants accepted the Deuterocanonical books as inspired in at least some limited sense. For example, the original version of the King James Bible, the most popular version of the Bible in English, included most of the Deuterocanonical books. And for many years in England, it was even illegal to publish a Bible without these books.

They continued to be included in almost all Protestant versions of the Bible until the missionary movement of the first part of the nineteenth century. In order to save on shipping costs, missionary Bible societies began publishing partial Bibles (New Testaments, Gospels, etc.). Converts and religious movements that were born out of this missionary movement came to believe that the thirty-nine books in the truncated, missionary-society–produced Old Testaments were the only “true” books of the Old Testament.

Most evangelical Protestants in America are heirs of this missionary movement. Consequently, many Americans who take the Bible seriously hold a grave misunderstanding about the Old Testament. They sincerely but mistakenly believe that the Deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament are not a part of the Christian Bible. They are ignorant of the fact that most of the Deuterocanonical books are quoted or alluded to as Scripture by the Apostles, the Church Fathers, and even Jesus Christ Himself.
A Septuagint Revival

Currently there is no translation of the LXX into modern English. Thank God that the St. Athanasius Academy has undertaken the Old Testament Orthodox Study Bible project in order to provide a good translation of the LXX into contemporary English. However, this project will not be completed for a few more years. In the meantime, an excellent translation of many of the Deuterocanonical books is available in most editions of the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible. However, for the thirty-nine books of the Protestant Old Testament, it is based primarily on the Masoretic text. Sir Lancelot Brendon’s The Septuagint with Apocrypha can be used to supplement the NRSV, although its language is somewhat archaic. Holy Transfiguration Monastery’s translation of the LXX Psalter (and Biblical Canticles) is also available and highly recommended.

Many prayers in the Church are based on prayers found in the Deuterocanonical books. The stories (or full stories) of many saints and angels celebrated in the liturgical calendar of the Orthodox Church are found in these books. The Wisdom of Solomon and the Book of Sirach, listed among the Deuterocanonical books, are storehouses of wisdom on a par with Proverbs. Edification and inspiration await those who take the time prayerfully to read these important books of the Church.

« Back
 
EO books not in the Catholic Bible:

1 Esdras
3 Maccabees
4 Maccabees
Psalm 151
 
1 Esdras

1 Esdras
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For a summary of conflicting Esdras naming, see Esdras.
[show]
Part of a series
of articles on the
Old Testament

Tanakh
(Books common to all Christian and Judaic canons)
Genesis · Exodus · Leviticus · Numbers · Deuteronomy · Joshua · Judges · Ruth · 1–2 Samuel · 1–2 Kings · 1–2 Chronicles · Ezra (Esdras) · Nehemiah · Esther · Job · Psalms · Proverbs · Ecclesiastes · Song of Songs · Isaiah · Jeremiah · Lamentations · Ezekiel · Daniel · Minor prophets
Deuterocanon
Tobit · Judith · 1 Maccabees · 2 Maccabees · Wisdom (of Solomon) · Sirach · Baruch · Letter of Jeremiah · Additions to Daniel · Additions to Esther
Greek and Slavonic Orthodox canon
1 Esdras · 3 Maccabees · Prayer of Manasseh · Psalm 151
Georgian Orthodox canon
4 Maccabees · 2 Esdras
Ethiopian Orthodox “narrow” canon
Apocalypse of Ezra · Jubilees · Enoch · 1–3 Meqabyan · 4 Baruch
Syriac Peshitta
Psalms 152–155 · 2 Baruch · Letter of Baruch
Bible Portal
This box: view • talk • edit

1 Esdras (Εσδράς A′) is a book from the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament regarded as canonical in Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy, but regarded as apocryphal by Jews, Catholics, and most Protestants. It is listed among the Apocrypha in Article VI of the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England.[1] It is similar to the Book of Ezra, but under a different arrangement and with 99 additional verses, which include a polished conclusion that the much shorter Ezra lacks. Modern texts begin with the last two short chapters of the preceding Biblical work — II Chronicles (Paralipomenon) — and the work properly begins in Chapter 2.

Josephus and the Church Fathers quoted 1 Esdras extensively; it was considered part of the Canon of the Old Testament,[citation needed] and indeed it is found in Origen’s Hexapla.

In the Slavonic editions of the Bible this book is called 2 Esdras; in the Vulgate it is called 3 Esdras, and in the Ethiopian Orthodox Bible it is called Ezra Kali which means 2 Ezra. For information about the book called 1 Esdras in the Vulgate and Slavonic editions, see the article on Book of Ezra.
 
3 Maccabees

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
[show]
Part of a series
of articles on the
Old Testament

Tanakh
(Books common to all Christian and Judaic canons)
Genesis · Exodus · Leviticus · Numbers · Deuteronomy · Joshua · Judges · Ruth · 1–2 Samuel · 1–2 Kings · 1–2 Chronicles · Ezra (Esdras) · Nehemiah · Esther · Job · Psalms · Proverbs · Ecclesiastes · Song of Songs · Isaiah · Jeremiah · Lamentations · Ezekiel · Daniel · Minor prophets
Deuterocanon
Tobit · Judith · 1 Maccabees · 2 Maccabees · Wisdom (of Solomon) · Sirach · Baruch · Letter of Jeremiah · Additions to Daniel · Additions to Esther
Greek and Slavonic Orthodox canon
1 Esdras · 3 Maccabees · Prayer of Manasseh · Psalm 151
Georgian Orthodox canon
4 Maccabees · 2 Esdras
Ethiopian Orthodox “narrow” canon
Apocalypse of Ezra · Jubilees · Enoch · 1–3 Meqabyan · 4 Baruch
Syriac Peshitta
Psalms 152–155 · 2 Baruch · Letter of Baruch
Bible Portal
This box: view • talk • edit

One of the Pseudepigrapha,[1] the Biblical book 3 Maccabees is found in most Orthodox Bibles as a part of the deuterocanonical books, but Protestants and Catholics do not include it in their list of apocrypha books, except the Moravian Brethren who included it in the Apocrypha of the Czech Kralicka Bible. The book actually has nothing to do with the Maccabees or their revolt against the Greek empire, as described in 1 Maccabees and 2 Maccabees. Instead it tells the story of persecution of the Jews under Ptolemy IV Philopator (222-205 BC). The name of the book apparently comes from the similarities between this book and the stories of the martyrdom of Eleazar and the Maccabeean youths in 2 Maccabees; the High Priest Shimon is also mentioned.
 
Why do Roman Catholics reject I Esdras, III Maccabees and the Prayer of Manasses when they were in the Septuagint? Wasn’t it the Bible the Apostles used? The Orthodox would say that you have taken books away from the Bible wouldn’t they?

I’ve always wanted to ask you folks this question, but didn’t want to start a new topic on it hehe.
 
Why do Roman Catholics reject I Esdras, III Maccabees and the Prayer of Manasses when they were in the Septuagint? Wasn’t it the Bible the Apostles used? The Orthodox would say that you have taken books away from the Bible wouldn’t they?

I’ve always wanted to ask you folks this question, but didn’t want to start a new topic on it hehe.
Why did Protestants take out 7 books from the OT?
 
Why did Protestants take out 7 books from the OT?
Because we’re heretics, duh?

Anyways, so why don’t ya accept these books that were in the Apostles’ Bible, your Orthodox bretheren accept them. If we Protestants are guilty of butchering the Bible, aren’t you Catholics just as guilty by removing I Esdras, III Maccabees and the Prayer of Manasses (not to mention Psalm 151), from the OT?
 
Why do Roman Catholics reject I Esdras, III Maccabees and the Prayer of Manasses when they were in the Septuagint? Wasn’t it the Bible the Apostles used? The Orthodox would say that you have taken books away from the Bible wouldn’t they?

I’ve always wanted to ask you folks this question, but didn’t want to start a new topic on it hehe.
Your question will confuse about 90% of the Catholic posters here. I’m not sure whether or not you have been told this but I have been told numerous times that the Catholic church accepts the septuagint because it’s inspired. The folks who believe this apparently have never really thought that position through. For starters there is no way of knowing what books the LXX of Christ’s time contained or if all the books contained in the LXX were considered as scripture.

Then of course you have the matter of different versions of the LXX containing different indexes of books.
 
Your question will confuse about 90% of the Catholic posters here. I’m not sure whether or not you have been told this but I have been told numerous times that the Catholic church accepts the septuagint because it’s inspired. The folks who believe this apparently have never really thought that position through. For starters there is no way of knowing what books the LXX of Christ’s time contained or if all the books contained in the LXX were considered as scripture.

Then of course you have the matter of different versions of the LXX containing different indexes of books.
I’m just asking a simple question that I think is a valid one.
 
What is the 5 earliest copies of the Septuagint that we have? What are their dates? What books do they contain?

The Ethiopian Orthodox also have the Book of Enoch in their cannon, which is a fabulous Messianic book if you have not read it. It details many Angel and Demon names as well as what happened in detail before the flood, the sins that the people were committing, etc.

IF we can know the 5 earliest copies of the Septuagint, their variances in books, maybe we can see how close they are to the original and maybe cross reference these findings to the earliest of the church fathers and what they wrote about the Septuagint and the Deuteroconnonical and apocryphal books.
 
What is the 5 earliest copies of the Septuagint that we have? What are their dates? What books do they contain?

The Ethiopian Orthodox also have the Book of Enoch in their cannon, which is a fabulous Messianic book if you have not read it. It details many Angel and Demon names as well as what happened in detail before the flood, the sins that the people were committing, etc.

IF we can know the 5 earliest copies of the Septuagint, their variances in books, maybe we can see how close they are to the original and maybe cross reference these findings to the earliest of the church fathers and what they wrote about the Septuagint and the Deuteroconnonical and apocryphal books.
Indeed, I have two translations of the Book of Enoch (which the New Testament actually quotes in Jude, unlike the Deuterocanon which isn’t quoted at all). I don’t consider it Scripture though.

I just wonder that if the charge against the Protestants (and thus the Jews who share our O.T. Canon) is that we took books out of the Bible the Apostles used, then going on the same logic the Orthodox can say that the Roman Church removed books that were in the same Bible that they consider as Scripture. And being that both go on Tradition, one has to wonder which tradition is right? Because if we go on the Catholic arguement than we must conceed that it can be used against them by the Orthodox.

I love reading the Deuterocanon/Apocrypha by the way, so I don’t think they should be destroyed or what not. I’m just curious as to the logic of the arguement labeled against Protestants when the Orthodox can use the same against the Catholics…
 
Book of Enoch is in the Coptic Orthodox Bible I believe. I think the only reason it was not included in the Orthodox Bible was that the author could not be confirmed at the time. I’m not totally sure on this though.
 
Book of Enoch is in the Coptic Orthodox Bible I believe. I think the only reason it was not included in the Orthodox Bible was that the author could not be confirmed at the time. I’m not totally sure on this though.
It’s in the Ethiopian Orthodox Bible, along with Jubilees and alot of other texts.
 
It’s in the Ethiopian Orthodox Bible, along with Jubilees and alot of other texts.
How big is an Ethiopian Bible? I’ve herd that Enoch was in there but that was it. Also, do other Copts use the same Bible such as the Egyptians? Thanks!
 
Last I checked the Ethiopean Canon is around 80 something books all together I do believe.
 
brigantine;:
How big is an Ethiopian Bible?
It is called The Ethiopiac Canon of Eighty One (Broader Canon) or The Ethiopiac Canon of Eighty One (Narrower Canon), depending upon which canon one is referring to.

Narrower Canon
  1. Genesis
  2. Exodus
  3. Leviticus
  4. Numbers
  5. Deuteronomy
  6. Joshua
  7. Judges
  8. Ruth
  9. Judith
  10. 1 Samuel
  11. 2 Samuel,
  12. 1 Kings
  13. 2 Kings
  14. 1 Chronicles
  15. 2 Chronicles, Prayer of Manasseh
  16. 1 Esdras (Ezra)
  17. 2 Esdras (Nehemiah)
  18. 3 Esdras
  19. Ezra Sutu’el (4 Esdras 3-14)
  20. Greek Esther
  21. Tobit
  22. 1 Meqabyan
  23. 2 Meqabyan
  24. 3 Meqabyan
  25. Job
  26. Psalms, Psalm 151
  27. Messalë (Proverbs 1 - 24)
  28. Täagsas (Proverbs 25 - 31)
  29. Wisdom of Solomon
  30. Ecclesiastes
  31. Song of Solomon
  32. Sirach (Ecclesiasticus)
  33. Isaiah
  34. Jeremiah (Jeremiah 1 - 52)
  35. Säqoqawä Eremyas (Lamentations)
  36. Baruch (Baruch 1-5)
  37. Epistle of Jeremiah
  38. Ezekiel
  39. Daniel
  40. Song of the Three Young Men, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon
  41. Hosea
  42. Amos
  43. Micah
  44. Joel
  45. Obadiah
  46. Jonah
  47. Nahum
  48. Habakkuk
  49. Zephaniah
  50. Haggai
  51. Zacariah
  52. Malachi
  53. Enoch
  54. Jubilees
  55. Matthew
  56. Mark
  57. Luke
  58. John
  59. Acts
  60. Romans
  61. 1 Corinthians
  62. 2 Corinthians
  63. Galatians
  64. Ephesians
  65. Philippians
  66. Collossians
  67. 1 Thessalonians
  68. 2 Thessalonians
  69. 1 Timothy
  70. 2 Timothy
  71. Titus
  72. Philemon
  73. Hebrews
  74. James
  75. 1 Peter
  76. 2 Peter
  77. 1 John
  78. 2 John
  79. 3 John
  80. Jude
  81. Revelation
Broader Canon
  1. Genesis
  2. Exodus
  3. Leviticus
  4. Numbers
  5. Deuteronomy
  6. Joshua
  7. Judges
  8. Ruth
  9. Judith
  10. 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings
  11. 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Prayer of Manasseh
  12. 1 Esdras (Ezra)
  13. 2 Esdras (Nehemiah)
  14. 3 Esdras, Ezra Sutu’el (4 Esdras 3-14)
  15. Greek Esther
  16. Tobit
  17. 1 Meqabyan
  18. 2 Meqabyan, 3 Meqabyan
  19. Job
  20. Psalms, Psalm 151
  21. Messalë (Proverbs 1 - 24)
  22. Täagsas (Proverbs 25 - 31)
  23. Wisdom of Solomon
  24. Ecclesiastes
  25. Song of Solomon
  26. Isaiah
  27. Jeremiah (Jeremiah 1 - 52)
  28. Säqoqawä Eremyas (Lamentations, Epistle of Jeremiah)
  29. Baruch (Baruch 1-5)
  30. Ezekiel
  31. Daniel (Daniel, Song of the Three Young Men, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon)
  32. Hosea
  33. Amos
  34. Micah
  35. Joel
  36. Obadiah
  37. Jonah
  38. Nahum
  39. Habakkuk
  40. Zephaniah
  41. Haggai
  42. Zacariah
  43. Malachi
  44. Sirach (Ecclesiasticus)
  45. Jubilees
  46. Enoch
  47. Matthew
  48. Mark
  49. Luke
  50. John
  51. Acts
  52. Romans
  53. 1 Corinthians
  54. 2 Corinthians
  55. Galatians
  56. Ephesians
  57. Philippians
  58. Collossians
  59. 1 Thessalonians
  60. 2 Thessalonians
  61. 1 Timothy
  62. 2 Timothy
  63. Titus
  64. Philemon
  65. Hebrews
  66. James
  67. 1 Peter
  68. 2 Peter
  69. 1 John
  70. 2 John
  71. 3 John
  72. Jude
  73. Revelation
  74. 1 Book of the Covenant (Mäshafä Kidan 1 - 60)
  75. 2 Book of the Covenant (Mäshafä Kidan 61)
  76. Didesqelya
  77. 1 Sinodos (Ser`atä Seyon)
  78. 2 Sinodos (Te’ezaz)
  79. 3 Sinodos (Gessew)
  80. 4 Sinodos (Abtelis)
  81. Qälëmentos
Also, do other Copts use the same Bible such as the Egyptians?
It is only used by The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church and The Eritrean Orthodox Tewahdo Church.

His Holiness Shenouda III, has endorsed The Haile Selassie Version of the Bible for the Tewahhhedo Churches.

jonathon
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top