Catholic and Orthodox Bible

[Ignatius II]

There are 4 or 5 books found in the Orthodox bible that are not in the Catholic Bible.  There are 2 additional books of Maccabees, an additional chapter of Psalms, the book of Esdras and I think the Prayer of Manasseh.  Is there a reason why these books were included in the Orthodox and not the Catholic Bible.  Did the Catholic church  remove them later? Were they included in the original composite of the Bible or were they possibly added later when they were deemed inspired by the Orthodox Church?

[Asteriktos]

Well, there's really no such thing as an "Orthodox Bible," if by that you mean a Bible canon that all Orthodox agree on. Though certainly various local Churches have the authority to decide what Bible their own (local) flock should use. Regarding the extra books/parts that are sometimes in Greek/Russian/etc. Bibles, the Orthodox do sometimes have more, that is true (though you have misunderstood a few particulars, e.g. 4 Maccabees is an appendix at best, not part of anyones canon that I know of). The reason is not that they were added (by the Orthodox) or subtracted (by the Catholics), or leastwise it is not so black and white as all that, because that would imply that there was some set canon that everyone agreed upon, and then changes were made later. The Catholics and Protestants didn't establish their canons dogmatically until the time or the reformation/counter-reformation, and the Orthodox never have... in essence, there has never been a canon that all Christians have agreed with.

[Wyatt]

I wonder if the Eastern Orthodox would have ratified a universal Biblical Canon as the West did at Trent if they had as much contact with Protestantism as we had?

[Alpo]

I wonder if the Eastern Orthodox would have ratified a universal Biblical Canon as the West did at Trent if they had as much contact with Protestantism as we had?

Since we seem to have sort of habit to codify our doctrine only in cases of controversy, probably yes.

[Wyatt]

If there was a universal Eastern Orthodox Biblical Canon...I wonder which books would make the cut?

[Saint Iaint]

If there was a universal Eastern Orthodox Biblical Canon...I wonder which books would make the cut?

I think the Orthodox Study Bible went a good ways toward answering that, am I right?

I like it. What reason would there be to take anything away?

I also almost think that the inclusion of the Didache wouldn't be a bad idea though.

†IC XC†
†NI KA†

[ialmisry]

There are 4 or 5 books found in the Orthodox bible that are not in the Catholic Bible.  There are 2 additional books of Maccabees, an additional chapter of Psalms, the book of Esdras and I think the Prayer of Manasseh.  Is there a reason why these books were included in the Orthodox and not the Catholic Bible.

No.

Did the Catholic church  remove them later?

Yes.

Were they included in the original composite of the Bible

Yes.

or were they possibly added later when they were deemed inspired by the Orthodox Church?

No.

[ialmisry]

If there was a universal Eastern Orthodox Biblical Canon...I wonder which books would make the cut?

the one in the Orthodox Study Bible.

[Achronos]

If there was a universal Eastern Orthodox Biblical Canon...I wonder which books would make the cut?

the one in the Orthodox Study Bible.

ROFL!

It's pretty bad.

[ialmisry]

If there was a universal Eastern Orthodox Biblical Canon...I wonder which books would make the cut?

the one in the Orthodox Study Bible.

ROFL!

It's pretty bad.

The canon? It has all the books that the Greeks, Slavs, Armenians, Syriac, Ethiopians etc. have in common.

That means that Maccabbees IV got left out. I wish it was appended, as it is in the Greek canon, as I am very fond of it.

[TryingtoConvert]

So why were books removed?

[ialmisry]

So why were books removed?

You will have to ask our friends at the Vatican.

[Achronos]

If there was a universal Eastern Orthodox Biblical Canon...I wonder which books would make the cut?

the one in the Orthodox Study Bible.

ROFL!

It's pretty bad.

The canon? It has all the books that the Greeks, Slavs, Armenians, Syriac, Ethiopians etc. have in common.

That means that Maccabbees IV got left out. I wish it was appended, as it is in the Greek canon, as I am very fond of it.

I apologize, I thought you were making fun of the OSB (Which I strongly dislike).

[Saint Iaint]

If there was a universal Eastern Orthodox Biblical Canon...I wonder which books would make the cut?

the one in the Orthodox Study Bible.

ROFL!

It's pretty bad.

The canon? It has all the books that the Greeks, Slavs, Armenians, Syriac, Ethiopians etc. have in common.

That means that Maccabbees IV got left out. I wish it was appended, as it is in the Greek canon, as I am very fond of it.

I apologize, I thought you were making fun of the OSB (Which I strongly dislike).

May I ask what you have against the OSB?

Thanks

†IC XC†
†NI KA†

[David 2007]

Well, there's really no such thing as an "Orthodox Bible," if by that you mean a Bible canon that all Orthodox agree on. Though certainly various local Churches have the authority to decide what Bible their own (local) flock should use. Regarding the extra books/parts that are sometimes in Greek/Russian/etc. Bibles, the Orthodox do sometimes have more, that is true (though you have misunderstood a few particulars, e.g. 4 Maccabees is an appendix at best, not part of anyones canon that I know of). The reason is not that they were added (by the Orthodox) or subtracted (by the Catholics), or leastwise it is not so black and white as all that, because that would imply that there was some set canon that everyone agreed upon, and then changes were made later. The Catholics and Protestants didn't establish their canons dogmatically until the time or the reformation/counter-reformation, and the Orthodox never have... in essence, there has never been a canon that all Christians have agreed with.

You know, this stuff is amazing and wonderful!

I love having my world turned upside down at age 34.

We just aren't taught this stuff in the west.

[Achronos]

If there was a universal Eastern Orthodox Biblical Canon...I wonder which books would make the cut?

the one in the Orthodox Study Bible.

ROFL!

It's pretty bad.

The canon? It has all the books that the Greeks, Slavs, Armenians, Syriac, Ethiopians etc. have in common.

That means that Maccabbees IV got left out. I wish it was appended, as it is in the Greek canon, as I am very fond of it.

I apologize, I thought you were making fun of the OSB (Which I strongly dislike).

May I ask what you have against the OSB?

Thanks

†IC XC†
†NI KA†

See here: http://orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/review_osb.aspx

[ialmisry]

If there was a universal Eastern Orthodox Biblical Canon...I wonder which books would make the cut?

the one in the Orthodox Study Bible.

ROFL!

It's pretty bad.

The canon? It has all the books that the Greeks, Slavs, Armenians, Syriac, Ethiopians etc. have in common.

That means that Maccabbees IV got left out. I wish it was appended, as it is in the Greek canon, as I am very fond of it.

I apologize, I thought you were making fun of the OSB (Which I strongly dislike).

May I ask what you have against the OSB?

Thanks

†IC XC†
†NI KA†

See here: http://orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/review_osb.aspx

A rather tired, nit-picky and ill-founded criticism (as opposed to critique) of the OSB. This hatchet job should have gone out of print long ago.

[Achronos]

If there was a universal Eastern Orthodox Biblical Canon...I wonder which books would make the cut?

the one in the Orthodox Study Bible.

ROFL!

It's pretty bad.

The canon? It has all the books that the Greeks, Slavs, Armenians, Syriac, Ethiopians etc. have in common.

That means that Maccabbees IV got left out. I wish it was appended, as it is in the Greek canon, as I am very fond of it.

I apologize, I thought you were making fun of the OSB (Which I strongly dislike).

May I ask what you have against the OSB?

Thanks

†IC XC†
†NI KA†

See here: http://orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/review_osb.aspx

A rather tired, nit-picky and ill-founded criticism (as opposed to critique) of the OSB. This hatchet job should have gone out of print long ago.

So what is your Bible of choice? And you think the OSB is acceptable?

[Deacon Lance]

There are 4 or 5 books found in the Orthodox bible that are not in the Catholic Bible.  There are 2 additional books of Maccabees, an additional chapter of Psalms, the book of Esdras and I think the Prayer of Manasseh.  Is there a reason why these books were included in the Orthodox and not the Catholic Bible.

Different Septuagint manuscripts included varying deuterocanonical books.  The Latin Vulgate (some of the deuteros came from the Septuagint) included 1&2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh.  The East did not include 1 Esdras and 2 Esdras of the Vulgate is call 1 Esdras by us.  

Did the Catholic church  remove them later?

Trent specified the Vulgate was to be followed and 1 & 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh were in an appendix in the Clementine Vulgate of 1592, but not the New Vulgate of 1979 or 1986.  I do not know the reason for the omission.  Byzantine Catholics continue to use the Prayer of Mannaseh at Great Compline.

Were they included in the original composite of the Bible

In some manuscripts, not in others.

or were they possibly added later when they were deemed inspired by the Orthodox Church?

No.

[ialmisry]

If there was a universal Eastern Orthodox Biblical Canon...I wonder which books would make the cut?

the one in the Orthodox Study Bible.

ROFL!

It's pretty bad.

The canon? It has all the books that the Greeks, Slavs, Armenians, Syriac, Ethiopians etc. have in common.

That means that Maccabbees IV got left out. I wish it was appended, as it is in the Greek canon, as I am very fond of it.

I apologize, I thought you were making fun of the OSB (Which I strongly dislike).

May I ask what you have against the OSB?

Thanks

†IC XC†
†NI KA†

See here: http://orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/review_osb.aspx

A rather tired, nit-picky and ill-founded criticism (as opposed to critique) of the OSB. This hatchet job should have gone out of print long ago.

So what is your Bible of choice?

In English? Usually the old Revised Standard.  The Oxford Annotated has all the books, including Maccabbees IV.

And you think the OSB is acceptable?

Acceptable enough, in particular now that OT and NT has come out.

Btw, this is another hatchet job, er, review, of the OSB which shoul also fall by the wayside, valid points drowned out by patronizing and at points down right arrogant quibbles.
http://orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/review_osb2.aspx

Just to give an example of what I'm talking about: the review you posted states

The Johannine comma, I John 5:7b-8a, is printed as part of the text, though it occurs in no Greek ms. before the fourteenth century and, for the Fathers at least, it is not part of the Orthodox Bible.

after drawing the line

First of all let us look at the translation used. This is not an Orthodox one at all. The editors have taken the New King James Version, which is a slightly modernised ('You' not 'Thou') re-edition of the version of 1611. They defend this on the grounds that the underlying Greek text of the New Testament in the King James version is closer to the traditional Byzantine text than that of modern critical editions. This is for the most part true and all that they needed to say was that the Byzantine text is the text accepted by the Orthodox Church...Instead they defend their decision on supposedly scholarly grounds. This is irrelevant, except for conservative Evangelicals who wish to justify their conservatism by trying to make it 'scientifically' respectable. It also obscures the central point that for the Orthodox the Bible comes from the Church, exists in the Church, lives in the Church. The section of the opening chapter, pages x and xi, which discusses the choice of text, is in fact nothing more than a slightly revised version of the preface to the Revised Authorised Version, pages vi and vii. In adopting this approach the editors allow themselves to be drawn onto the ground chosen by their opponents, when they should have taken their stand on the Orthodox ground that the Church's text is the Orthodox text, full stop.

Well, the Orthodox text used by the Orthodox Churches of Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Cyprus and the Church of Greece (the Autorized Patriarchal Text of 1904), the Church Slavonic Bible of the Churches of Russia, Serbia, Bulgaria, the Czech Land and Slovakia and Poland, and the Russian and Romanian Synodal Bibles of the Churches of Russia and Romania all have the Johannine comma (the Arabic of the Churches of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem have it too, but the translation was sponsered by Protestants). The Archmandrite seems oblivious to that fact.

Now one can still argue that "for the Fathers at least, it is not part of the Orthodox Bible," but one will have to address the complaint to the cradles of the Mother Churches, and stop blaming the converts.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!) > Topic: Catholic and Orthodox Bible