Why is the Orthodox scripture canon larger?

[Lief_Erikson]

When I debate with Protestants, I point out that the scripture canon was firmly established by the Early Church councils of Hippo, Carthage and Rome. Trent merely reaffirmed what already existed. The scripture lists of those Early Church councils are easily available for anyone to see, and they are the same we use in the Roman Catholic Church.

However, the Great Schism took place in the 11th century. One would think that if the canon was firmly established back in the late 4th and early 5th century councils, the canons the Orthodox and Catholic churches use would be the same.

The books I know about that the Orthodox appear to include in their canon but Catholics don’t are 1 Esdras and 3 & 4 Maccabees. These books aren’t in the Catholic canon or the lists of the early councils. Could anyone explain this difference for me, please?

 

[Lief_Erikson]

I’ve found now that I’m wrong about 4 Maccabees – the Orthodox don’t include it in the canon but in an appendix. My question about 3 Maccabees and 1 Esdras remains.

 

[SonCatcher]

I’m not sure, but think those books do appear in the Septuagint (along with the deuterocanonicals). 1 Esdras and 3 Maccabees may have been in some copies of the Septuagint and not others. It may be that after setting the first (Hebrew) and second (Greek) canons, those other books from the Septuagint were left in place and ultimately became a de facto third canon (while 4 Maccabees, according to your update, became apocryphal).

The best way to start your explanation is the same as any of the differences between East and West. That the particular traditions mainly developed separately and are both valid proclamations of the Gospel. The points of view are quite different, though.

Despite Protestant differences from Catholicism, they tend to be rooted in Western (Roman/Latin) theology so encourage them to study that most deeply as they will be more likely to understand. Naturally, they should examine Eastern theology, as well, as the additional perspective can give deeper meaning.

 

[Spencerian]

When I debate with Protestants, I point out that the scripture canon was firmly established by the Early Church councils of Hippo, Carthage and Rome. Trent merely reaffirmed what already existed. The scripture lists of those Early Church councils are easily available for anyone to see, and they are the same we use in the Roman Catholic Church.

However, the Great Schism took place in the 11th century. One would think that if the canon was firmly established back in the late 4th and early 5th century councils, the canons the Orthodox and Catholic churches use would be the same.

The books I know about that the Orthodox appear to include in their canon but Catholics don’t are 1 Esdras and 3 & 4 Maccabees. These books aren’t in the Catholic canon or the lists of the early councils. Could anyone explain this difference for me, please?

Hi.

As others have implied, the reason why the two Old Testaments of the Eastern and Western Churches have variations is because there is no one version of Jewish Scripture that canonically defined the Septuagint books (“LXX”) between all faiths.

This history may take a bit of digging behind what can be described here. Take a look at the Catholic Encyclopedia article on this, which has many links into the LXX and how the books of the Palestinian Jews and Alexandrian Jews varied in support, by which some were supported by the Western Church, and others were not.

 

[mardukm]

The Septuagint has always been the OT of the Byzantine East.

The Seventh Ecumenical Council confirmed several local councils, and those local councils proffered scriptural canons, each one slightly different than the other. So the Church has always had several different regional canons.

It should be noted that the Canon of Trent was not exclusive. At Trent, the Catholic Church did not assert that no other books can be in the Canon; she merely ruled that the books she did approve were a necessary part of the Canon. She anathematized anyone who rejected the books she regarded as Scripture. So none of the non-Latin apostolic Churches would fall under that anathema, even though they may have a few more books than the Latin Catholic Church.

Blessings

 

[Byzman]

When I debate with Protestants, I point out that the scripture canon was firmly established by the Early Church councils of Hippo, Carthage and Rome. Trent merely reaffirmed what already existed. The scripture lists of those Early Church councils are easily available for anyone to see, and they are the same we use in the Roman Catholic Church.

However, the Great Schism took place in the 11th century. One would think that if the canon was firmly established back in the late 4th and early 5th century councils, the canons the Orthodox and Catholic churches use would be the same.

The books I know about that the Orthodox appear to include in their canon but Catholics don’t are 1 Esdras and 3 & 4 Maccabees. These books aren’t in the Catholic canon or the lists of the early councils. Could anyone explain this difference for me, please?

Well for one, the Greeks never had to make a translation of the Scriptures. All they had to do was make copies. This is a much easier task than translating and copying. That is basically all they had to do…was make copies of the Septuagint. Secondly, these councils are only local councils in the West, not the East…binding only on the Latin Church. Thirdly, they come from Tradition of how they are to be read in Church. At the time, the Church in the West received these books from their predecessors. The Church in the East received the Septuagint from their predecessors. What is Sacred Tradition is the preserving of the Inspiration of the Scriptures, established by the Councils. I do not know if the extra books in the Septuagint are inspired, the Church has not made a formal opinion of these books. They could be, they might not be, but all Scripture is different…in the sense of how they are to be read and honored. We stand for the Gospels, and no other books. We use the Psalms for the weekly cycle of the Divine Praises. So every book is honored differently.

 

[CaptainPicard]

When I debate with Protestants, I point out that the scripture canon was firmly established by the Early Church councils of Hippo, Carthage and Rome. Trent merely reaffirmed what already existed. The scripture lists of those Early Church councils are easily available for anyone to see, and they are the same we use in the Roman Catholic Church.

However, the Great Schism took place in the 11th century. One would think that if the canon was firmly established back in the late 4th and early 5th century councils, the canons the Orthodox and Catholic churches use would be the same.

The books I know about that the Orthodox appear to include in their canon but Catholics don’t are 1 Esdras and 3 & 4 Maccabees. These books aren’t in the Catholic canon or the lists of the early councils. Could anyone explain this difference for me, please?

I’ve asked the same question, and it’s hard to find an answer because the debate between Catholics and Protestants over the canon usually seems to obscure the difference between the Orthodox and Catholic canon.
I’m no historian, but I know that the councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage were 1. not Ecumenical councils and 2. all held in the West. From what I understand, they pretty much settled the canon in the West (as the books we have today), though the deuterocanonical books were still questioned occasionally.
Apparently in the Eastern Church they were doing their own thing. I suppose that since the Septuagint was in Greek, they’d have a greater affinity for it, as others have said.

 

[josie_L]

When I debate with Protestants, I point out that the scripture canon was firmly established by the Early Church councils of Hippo, Carthage and Rome. Trent merely reaffirmed what already existed. The scripture lists of those Early Church councils are easily available for anyone to see, and they are the same we use in the Roman Catholic Church.

However, the Great Schism took place in the 11th century. One would think that if the canon was firmly established back in the late 4th and early 5th century councils, the canons the Orthodox and Catholic churches use would be the same.

The books I know about that the Orthodox appear to include in their canon but Catholics don’t are 1 Esdras and 3 & 4 Maccabees. These books aren’t in the Catholic canon or the lists of the early councils. Could anyone explain this difference for me, please?

I believe that the Oriental Orthodox have 73 books in their Bible just like we do.

 

[crazzeto]

When I debate with Protestants, I point out that the scripture canon was firmly established by the Early Church councils of Hippo, Carthage and Rome. Trent merely reaffirmed what already existed. The scripture lists of those Early Church councils are easily available for anyone to see, and they are the same we use in the Roman Catholic Church.

However, the Great Schism took place in the 11th century. One would think that if the canon was firmly established back in the late 4th and early 5th century councils, the canons the Orthodox and Catholic churches use would be the same.

The books I know about that the Orthodox appear to include in their canon but Catholics don’t are 1 Esdras and 3 & 4 Maccabees. These books aren’t in the Catholic canon or the lists of the early councils. Could anyone explain this difference for me, please?

The EO as I found out in my thread challenging them with this regard, actually have no canon of scripture. What they have is a collection of books commonly agreed upon, but each church could (and in many cases do) have a varying number of books. For instance the Ethiopean Orthodox have 81 books, most EO generally add I believe 3 books to the OT “Canon” (three Sept books not affirmed by any council).

I suspect that it was indeed Carthage & Hippo 1 & 2 which set in stone the NT Canon for all Christians (I think that the NT is not at variance, though I’m not totally familiar with all Eth-O additions). At any rate, the CC is really the only Christian Church with has the capability to demonstrate very clearly that it has always used the same Canon. I don’t doubt that the EO also have not really changed with regards to their own individual church, but as they have no council of their own regarding the canon and many EO here reject Carthiage & Hippo (1&2) it leaves the question as to which books should be in the bible purely as a matter of tradition for them.

 

[Hesychios]

I believe that the Oriental Orthodox have 73 books in their Bible just like we do.

What is it that makes you believe that?

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Thanks for all the replies, everyone. They’re proving very helpful.

It should be noted that the Canon of Trent was not exclusive. At Trent, the Catholic Church did not assert that no other books can be in the Canon; she merely ruled that the books she did approve were a necessary part of the Canon. She anathematized anyone who rejected the books she regarded as Scripture. So none of the non-Latin apostolic Churches would fall under that anathema, even though they may have a few more books than the Latin Catholic Church.

Would you care to back this up with some sourcing? I’d love to know that that’s true; it would be deeply interesting .
Capta(name removed by moderator)icard:

I’ve asked the same question, and it’s hard to find an answer because the debate between Catholics and Protestants over the canon usually seems to obscure the difference between the Orthodox and Catholic canon.
I’m no historian, but I know that the councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage were 1. not Ecumenical councils and 2. all held in the West. From what I understand, they pretty much settled the canon in the West (as the books we have today), though the deuterocanonical books were still questioned occasionally.
Apparently in the Eastern Church they were doing their own thing.

I think that’s correct . . . what you’ve said is the feeling I’m getting too.

Byzman:

What is Sacred Tradition is the preserving of the Inspiration of the Scriptures, established by the Councils. I do not know if the extra books in the Septuagint are inspired, the Church has not made a formal opinion of these books.

That’s what mardukm says too, and I’d enjoy seeing a source for it . I mean, a source backing the view that the Ecumenical Council of Trent did not definitively close the canon.

 

[josie_L]

What is it that makes you believe that?

Actually, it was because of Marduk that I found out the OO and the CC contain the same books in their Bible, anyways, here is a website that I found delineating the books in the Coptic canon for the OT:

5 Books of the law

1. Genesis. 2. Exodus. 3. Leviticus. 4 Numbers. 5. Deutornomy

12 books of history
6. Joshua. 7. Judges. 8. Ruth. 9. 1 Sam. 10. 2 Sam. 11. 1 Kings. 12. 2 Kings. 13. 1 Chronicles. 14. 2 Chronicles. 15. Ezra. 16. Nehemiah. 17. Ester (includes addtions/prayer of Mordecai)

5 books of poetry
18. Job. 19. Psalms (includes Psalm 151). 20. Proverbs. 21. Ecclesiastes. 22. Song of Songs

5 Major prophets
23. Isaiah. 24. Jeremiah (includes Letter of Jeremiah). 26. Lamentations of Jeremiah. 27. Ezekiel. 28. Daniel (includes 3 wise men in the furnace/Song of Azariah (Dan 3), Susanna, Prayer of Manasseh, Daniel in the lions den and Bel and the Dragon)

12 Minor prophets
29. Hosea. 30. Joel. 31. Amos. 32. Obadiah. 33. Jonah. 34. Micah. 35. Nahum. 36. Habbakuk. 37. Haggai. 38. Zachariah. 39. Malachi

Deutrocanonical
40. Esdra (1 and 2)
41. Tobit
42. Judith
43. Wisdom of Solomon
44. Son of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus)
45. Baruch
46. Maccabees (1 and 2)

coptichymns.net/PNphpBB2-viewtopic-t-6520.html

46 OT + 27 NT = 73 books

 

[Nine_Two]

The Coptic Church is just one of many Oriental Orthodox Churches.

The Ethiopians have more than any other Church in any communion, the Armenians have a few more, both are Oriental Orthodox.

 

[josie_L]

The Coptic Church is just one of many Oriental Orthodox Churches.

The Ethiopians have more than any other Church in any communion, the Armenians have a few more, both are Oriental Orthodox.

And how does this ultimately change the fact that the Coptic Church (which is part of the OO) has 73 books in their Bible just like the CC (recollect that the OP wrote “why is the Orthodox scripture canon larger”) . . .

 

[Mickey]

anyways, here is a website that I found delineating the books in the Coptic canon for the OT:

This came from a forum by a poster named “George”. Is there any official information from the Coptic Church about the canon?

 

[josephdaniel29]

And how does this ultimately change the fact that the Coptic Church (which is part of the OO) has 73 books in their Bible just like the CC (recollect that the OP wrote “why is the Orthodox scripture canon larger”) . . .

It doesn’t, but that’s not what you said. You said…

I believe that the Oriental Orthodox have 73 books in their Bible just like we do.

The Coptic Church is but one of the Oriental Communion. As has been pointed out the Ethiopian and Armenian canons differ from the Coptic.

 

[Nine_Two]

And how does this ultimately change the fact that the Coptic Church (which is part of the OO) has 73 books in their Bible just like the CC (recollect that the OP wrote “why is the Orthodox scripture canon larger”) . . .

What the OP wrote is immaterial when I’m responding directly to what you said. It very much challenges the idea that the Oriental Orthodox are closer to Catholics based solely on the argument of Canon.

Whether or not they are closer is not something I’ll go into arguing as it isn’t something I’ve ever put any effort into figuring out.

 

[StrawberryJam]

I have a question. Do some number the same books in different ways? I belive my priest mentioned that there are some books that are the same, yet numbered differently in the EO, but not all of them. I never did ask him which ones those would be.

Another question- do any of the books that are considered additional, have any doctrinal importance?

 

[Nine_Two]

I have a question. Do some number the same books in different ways? I belive my priest mentioned that there are some books that are the same, yet numbered differently in the EO, but not all of them. I never did ask him which ones those would be.

Another question- do any of the books that are considered additional, have any doctrinal importance?

The Books of Samuel and Kings were originally one set of books, the Orthodox have maintained this numbering while the Protestants have changed it, it seems most Catholics have adopted the Protestant system in English speaking countries. Additionally Psalms is numbered differently, off the top of my head I can’t remember the division but one of the earlier ones is held to be two by the West and one of the later ones is held to be two by Orthodox, plus we have one additional psalm “outside the number”.

 

[crazzeto]

The Books of Samuel and Kings were originally one set of books, the Orthodox have maintained this numbering while the Protestants have changed it, it seems most Catholics have adopted the Protestant system in English speaking countries. Additionally Psalms is numbered differently, off the top of my head I can’t remember the division but one of the earlier ones is held to be two by the West and one of the later ones is held to be two by Orthodox, plus we have one additional psalm “outside the number”.

With regard to Psalms, while I don’t have direct knowlege I’ve heard there are 30 different numbering orders for them. This comes from the author of the e-sword software who is him self a protestant. But as his program is rather eccumenical (even if heavily protestant leaning in officially available source materials), I’m sure he hears from a large number of different Christian groups and probably has heard request regarding an error in how this software handles the numbering of Psalms (Hebrew only).

The Douay bible follows the Vulgate exactly, which I beleive would be more familiar to what the Orthodox use.

The official Church documentation regarding the Canon, as well as the Vulgate and the Douay all number 4 books of Kings rather than 2 Kings 2 Samuel.

With regard to the changes in the numbering of psalms and the numbering of the books of kings, while part of me wants to be a traditionalist and say “forget the protestants, lets do it the way we’ve always done it” I do frankly see the value, particularly here on these forums for adopting a more eccumenical approch. Our goal is to reunite Christianity, that they may be one as the father and the son are one. By taking a more eccumenical approch it makes diaologe easier.