You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Which Bible do the Orthodox use?
- Thread starter Nelka
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
B
bingbell484
Guest
Perhaps an Orthodox person will tell me I’m wrong, but I believe the english language version they use most is the King James. So, yes, it would be a protestant translation.
Unless something has changed in the last year, there is no Orthodox bible translation for the english Language.
Unless something has changed in the last year, there is no Orthodox bible translation for the english Language.
S
Seraphim73
Guest
You are wrong on a couple of points. The KJV is rarely used liturgically and there are a couple of Orthodox translations out there. The most popular, the Orthodox Study Bible, is based on the NKJV with corrections where the NKJV doesn’t agree with the Septuagint text.Perhaps an Orthodox person will tell me I’m wrong, but I believe the english language version they use most is the King James. So, yes, it would be a protestant translation.
Unless something has changed in the last year, there is no Orthodox bible translation for the english Language.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Joey-You are wrong on a couple of points. The KJV is rarely used liturgically and there are a couple of Orthodox translations out there. The most popular, the Orthodox Study Bible, is based on the NKJV with corrections where the NKJV doesn’t agree with the Septuagint text.
Do the Orthodox consider the canon closed?
S
Seraphim73
Guest
Probably not in the sense I think you may mean. For example, the Ethiopian canon is larger than ours. I don’t think any Chalcedonian Orthodox Church would call their canon into question or the canon of any other ancient Church for that matter. What would not happen is for any of the Chalcedonian Churches to add or take away books from their current canons.Joey-
Do the Orthodox consider the canon closed?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
But could books be added to your canon at this point?Probably not in the sense I think you may mean. For example, the Ethiopian canon is larger than ours. I don’t think any Chalcedonian Orthodox Church would call their canon into question or the canon of any other ancient Church for that matter. What would not happen is for any of the Chalcedonian Churches to add or take away books from their current canons.
S
Seraphim73
Guest
No there would be no books added. But, if we were to reunite with the Oriental Orthodox we wouldn’t ask them to remove books.But could books be added to your canon at this point?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
That might be the same approach we take when you re-join us. Trent defined the canon, but I’m not sure it closed the canon. Therefore, the extra books that you have would probably be added or added for your use only.No there would be no books added. But, if we were to reunite with the Oriental Orthodox we wouldn’t ask them to remove books.
N
Nektarios_Lady
Guest
Why did Jerome remove those 4 books, mentioned above, from the Bible when he translated it from the original Greek, used universally until the late 4th century, into Latin?
Was it like in Martin Luther’s case about 1,100 yrs later that those books simply didn’t fit his own theology?
Or was something else behind the removal of 4 books of Holy Scripture?
Was it like in Martin Luther’s case about 1,100 yrs later that those books simply didn’t fit his own theology?
Or was something else behind the removal of 4 books of Holy Scripture?
R
RaphaelJ
Guest
Why did Jerome remove those 4 books, mentioned above, from the Bible when he translated it from the original Greek, used universally until the late 4th century, into Latin?
Was it like in Martin Luther’s case about 1,100 yrs later that those books simply didn’t fit his own theology?
From some research in Wikipedia and the Catholic encyclopedia, it seems that technically a council (Synod of Hippo) also approved the Latin canon. Furthermore, we aren’t the only ones. Each community such as the Syriacs, Egyptians and Armenians also had slightly different canons. All differed in some books found in the Old Testament. It was probably not because the content of the books are at odds with their theology but because the West had a stricter approach to canon which is why they took out certain books which they thought did not possess the spiritual qualities of a truly inspired book. The Orthodox canon is probably the Greek canon.Or was something else behind the removal of 4 books of Holy Scripture?
D
dronald
Guest
But they would still be false books right?That might be the same approach we take when you re-join us. Trent defined the canon, but I’m not sure it closed the canon. Therefore, the extra books that you have would probably be added or added for your use only.
R
RyanBlack
Guest
What do you mean by “false books”?
P
pablope
Guest
No. Keep in mind what is “canonical” meant then to what it means to you, in the modern sense.But they would still be false books right?
catholicbridge.com/catholic/orthodox/why_orthodox_bible_is_different_from_catholic.php
In addition to this, there is the fact that Greek Orthodox Churches (especially) have a more fluid (less formal or legalistic) notion of how the idea of a “canonical book” should be applied. For example, in the Greek Orthodox Liturgy, they have NEVER read from the Book of Revelation. And, because of this, many modern Greeks will claim that Revelation is “not canonical.” …because they do not read from it in their Greek Liturgy. Now, the fact that the Russian Orthodox Church does read from Revelation in their, Russian Liturgy is beside the point. So, for the Eastern Orthodox, “canonical” does not really refer to a univesally-agreed upon canon, but to the common regional practice of specific Churches. Uunfortunately, this has led some modern Greek and Antiochian Orthodox to claim that the Book of Revelation is “not inspired” and/or “not binding” on them, which is a modernist revision (a heretical novelty), which no ancient Greek or Antiochian would ever claim. For, what their forefathers would say is that Revelation (or another book like it) is still Divinely inspired, but just not canonical (i.e., not approved for reading at their Liturgy). And, for those Easterners who did recognze the binding authority of the Cathaginian canon, they would of course say that Revelation is universally binding (i.e., canonical in a universal sense), but simply not part of their local Liturgical canon.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
Other than his disdain for Greek (he considered it the language of the uneducated masses), St. Jerome, as far as I’m aware, seems to have been completely Orthodox in his theology (unlike Luther).Why did Jerome remove those 4 books, mentioned above, from the Bible when he translated it from the original Greek, used universally until the late 4th century, into Latin?
Was it like in Martin Luther’s case about 1,100 yrs later that those books simply didn’t fit his own theology?
Or was something else behind the removal of 4 books of Holy Scripture?
At the time he was around there was no one list of canon books. Whatever he was going by simply didn’t include those books would be my assumption.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.