Why do Orthodoxy,Catholic and protestant have different canonical scriptures?

[walter1234]

Orthodox , Catholic ,Protestant use different bible and have various canonical scriptures, Which universal council  do they refer to when they set their bible and canonical scriptures ?

Among Orthodox ,Cathlolic and Protestant, Which one's canonical bible is correct and truly from God?And Why?

[JamesR]

The Eastern Orthodox Church generally uses the Septuagint--however, it may interest you to know that still to this very day, there is technically NOT a single authoritive Canon in the Orthodox Church stating which books are and are not Scriptures. It's just generally a consensus. The belief that Nicea I formulated an authoritive Scripture Canon is actually a myth. What did come from Nicea I though was the first fully complete documents of what we now recognize as the Bible--these were the 50 Bibles of Constantinople. However, as to whether there was any Canonizing process involved, there is nothing to suggest so.

I don't know about the Roman Catholic Scripture

As for Protestants, they have different Scriptures than us because they use the Masoretic text and because the Reformers took books out of the Bible that they didn't like.

[walter1234]

I am interested in when and how the old  and new testament were formed.

[walter1234]

The Eastern Orthodox Church generally uses the Septuagint--however, it may interest you to know that still to this very day, there is technically NOT a single authoritive Canon in the Orthodox Church stating which books are and are not Scriptures. It's just generally a consensus. The belief that Nicea I formulated an authoritive Scripture Canon is actually a myth. What did come from Nicea I though was the first fully complete documents of what we now recognize as the Bible--these were the 50 Bibles of Constantinople. However, as to whether there was any Canonizing process involved, there is nothing to suggest so.

I don't know about the Roman Catholic Scripture

As for Protestants, they have different Scriptures than us because they use the Masoretic text and because the Reformers took books out of the Bible that they didn't like.

Which Scriptures did Martin Luther take away during the reformation?

[JamesR]

The Eastern Orthodox Church generally uses the Septuagint--however, it may interest you to know that still to this very day, there is technically NOT a single authoritive Canon in the Orthodox Church stating which books are and are not Scriptures. It's just generally a consensus. The belief that Nicea I formulated an authoritive Scripture Canon is actually a myth. What did come from Nicea I though was the first fully complete documents of what we now recognize as the Bible--these were the 50 Bibles of Constantinople. However, as to whether there was any Canonizing process involved, there is nothing to suggest so.

I don't know about the Roman Catholic Scripture

As for Protestants, they have different Scriptures than us because they use the Masoretic text and because the Reformers took books out of the Bible that they didn't like.

Which Scriptures did Martin Luther take away during the reformation?

Tobit, Judith, 1st + 2nd Maccabees, Wisdom of Sirach, Baruch along with a few parts of Daniel. He also wanted to take James out of the New Testament but didn't because his followers didn't allow him to go that far. But to this very day, the epistle of James is still at the very back of the Lutheran Bible.

[Cyrillic]

The Eastern Orthodox Church generally uses the Septuagint--however, it may interest you to know that still to this very day, there is technically NOT a single authoritive Canon in the Orthodox Church stating which books are and are not Scriptures. It's just generally a consensus. The belief that Nicea I formulated an authoritive Scripture Canon is actually a myth. What did come from Nicea I though was the first fully complete documents of what we now recognize as the Bible--these were the 50 Bibles of Constantinople. However, as to whether there was any Canonizing process involved, there is nothing to suggest so.

I don't know about the Roman Catholic Scripture

As for Protestants, they have different Scriptures than us because they use the Masoretic text and because the Reformers took books out of the Bible that they didn't like.

Which Scriptures did Martin Luther take away during the reformation?

Tobit, Judith, 1st + 2nd Maccabees, Wisdom of Sirach, Baruch along with a few parts of Daniel. He also wanted to take James out of the New Testament but didn't because his followers didn't allow him to go that far. But to this very day, the epistle of James is still at the very back of the Lutheran Bible.

Well, only in Lutheran bibles in German.

[walter1234]

When did Masoretic Texts form? Why do Masoretic texts have less authority than Septuagint?

[Cyrillic]

When did Masoretic Texts form?

10th century AD or so.

Why do Masoretic texts have less authority than Septuagints?

Because the Septuagint is older and used almost always by the Greek Church Fathers.

[walter1234]

I've heard the reformers have taken away some parts from book of Denial and Book of Esther. Can I see what these parts are and what these verses talk about?How do these parts/verses contradict with the doctrine of Luther or Protestant?

Does the Masoretic text have those verses which the reformers took away from Book of Daniel and Esther?

[mike]

I've heard the reformers have taken away some parts from book of Denial and Book of Esther. Can I see what these parts are and what these verses talk about?How do these parts/verses contradict with the doctrine of Luther or Protestant?

Praying for the dead.

[walter1234]

Does Orthodox consider Tobit, Judith, 1st + 2nd Maccabees, Wisdom of Sirach, Baruch ,part of Daniel and esther which reformers took away as Apocrypha?

[Cyrillic]

Does Orthodox consider Tobit, Judith, 1st + 2nd Maccabees, Wisdom of Sirach, Baruch ,part of Daniel and esther which reformers took away as Apocrypha?

No. Those books are considered to be legitimate parts of Scripture.

[walter1234]

Does Orthodox consider Tobit, Judith, 1st + 2nd Maccabees, Wisdom of Sirach, Baruch ,part of Daniel and esther which reformers took away as Apocrypha?

No. Those books are considered to be legitimate parts of Scripture.

I see. Catholic , Orthodox and Protestant do not have the same canonical Scriptures. So, which one's Scriptures are truly from God?

This can also prove why Sola Scriptural is nonsense.

[JamesR]

When did Masoretic Texts form?

Sometime in the first millenium AD--years after Christianity and Judaism separated.

Why do Masoretic texts have less authority than Septuagint?

Because the Masoretic text was created by Jews years after Judaism and Christianity had separated. A decisions made by Jews should have no bearing on the Church, and likewise, the Church had already been using the Septuagint years before the Masoretic text existed.

[walter1234]

How about Tanakh?

What is the difference between Tanakh and Masoretic?

[walter1234]

The Tanakh and masoretic has the same canonical Scripture.

Was Tanakh formed before the birth of Christ? What is the difference between Tanakh and Masoretic texts

[Justin Kissel]

Why do Orthodoxy,Catholic and protestant have different canonical scriptures?

New Testament was generally solidifed by early 5th century (not St. Athanasius). The debates about the Old Testament canon largely fell into silence, but that doesn't mean everyone agreed. Catholics dogmafied things at Trent, and Protestants also solidified their entire canon into 66 books at roughly the same time. The Orthodox have never had one single canon, and never will most likely.

[walter1234]

Tanakh and Masoretic use the same the canonical Scriputures. Tanakh has longer history than Masoretic text as well.

Why would Protestant use Masoretic texts instead of Tanakh?

Is there any difference between Tanakh and Masoretic?

[Theophilos78]

How about Tanakh?

What is the difference between Tanakh and Masoretic?

Tanakh is the name given by the Jews to the Old Testament.

Masoretic text of the Tanakh vs. the Septuagint version of the Tanakh.

[Punch]

The Eastern Orthodox Church generally uses the Septuagint--however, it may interest you to know that still to this very day, there is technically NOT a single authoritive Canon in the Orthodox Church stating which books are and are not Scriptures. It's just generally a consensus. The belief that Nicea I formulated an authoritive Scripture Canon is actually a myth. What did come from Nicea I though was the first fully complete documents of what we now recognize as the Bible--these were the 50 Bibles of Constantinople. However, as to whether there was any Canonizing process involved, there is nothing to suggest so.

I don't know about the Roman Catholic Scripture

As for Protestants, they have different Scriptures than us because they use the Masoretic text and because the Reformers took books out of the Bible that they didn't like.

Which Scriptures did Martin Luther take away during the reformation?

Tobit, Judith, 1st + 2nd Maccabees, Wisdom of Sirach, Baruch along with a few parts of Daniel. He also wanted to take James out of the New Testament but didn't because his followers didn't allow him to go that far. But to this very day, the epistle of James is still at the very back of the Lutheran Bible.

I have a Lutheran Bible, in German, Martin Luther translation, and printed in 1801.  It has all of the books you mention, and James is right where it is supposed to be.  Luther did not translate the "Apocrypha", but had Philip Melanchthon do it.  So, you may be correct to say that Luther's Bible did not have these books, but a good many "Lutheran" Bibles after Luther sure did.

[Punch]

 So, which one's Scriptures are truly from God?

Well, my guess would be that since this is an ORTHODOX forum, the ORTHODOX version would be from God. It would make sense that if the Protestants and Roman Catholics had Scriptures that were from God (or at least if they understood them), they would be Orthodox.

[walter1234]

How about Tanakh?

What is the difference between Tanakh and Masoretic?

Tanakh is the name given by the Jews to the Old Testament.

Masoretic text of the Tanakh vs. the Septuagint version of the Tanakh.

So, Tanaja is simply a name rather than a bible version?

[JamesR]

The Tankh (sp?) is basically just the Jewish name for what we as Christians would call the Old Testament. Now, as to which Old Testament the Jews use--the Septuagint or the Masoretic--they use both depending on the region. To this day, there still is technically not an official Jewish Canon of the Old Testament. Some Jews in the western world use the Tankh whereas some Jews in places like Ethiopia still use the Septuagint.

[walter1234]

I have just realized the 39 canonical Old Testament  in protestant /Takakh is recognized by the religious council of Judaism around A.D 100. At that time, Judaism had separated from Church for 70 years and cannot consider as  God's Church anynmore.What Judaism did should have no influence on Church anymore.How come Protestant is so foolish and use the canonical Old Testament  which is recognised by other religion which is outside the church?

And Quite a lot of Apocryphal were not recognized as Canonical scripture by Judaism in that council simply because they could not found any Herbrew copy at that time. But after the discovery of Dead Sea Scroll, many Apocryphal can have Hebrew copy nowadays. Should Protestant put those Apocryphal back to their bible and consider them as part of Canonical Scriptures now?

[Justin Kissel]

While I'm sure various councils took place, the infamous Council of Jamnia is, itself, largely apocryphal.

[Justin Kissel]

An interesting aside--even Fathers who used/favored the Septuagint had this interesting custom of limiting the books in their old testament canon to 22 because that's how many letters there are in the Hebrew alphabet. Sts. Athanasius, Hilary of Poitiers, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory the Theologian, and John of Damascus all did this.

[mike]

Should Protestant put those Apocryphal back to their bible and consider them as part of Canonical Scriptures now?

Who cares about what they do?

[walter1234]

An interesting aside--even Fathers who used/favored the Septuagint had this interesting custom of limiting the books in their old testament canon to 22 because that's how many letters there are in the Hebrew alphabet. Sts. Athanasius, Hilary of Poitiers, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory the Theologian, and John of Damascus all did this.

After the discovery of  Dead Scroll Sea, nearly all Apocryphal can have Hebrew copy . Such way of deciding which Scriptures is canonical should not be applicable anymore nowadays.

[Justin Kissel]

I don't understand how my post is related to your post, walter

[walter1234]

I don't understand how my post is related to your post, walter

English is my First language. I think I've misunderstood what you said .  

What is  "how many letters there are in the Hebrew alphabet" and "Hebrew alphabets"?

An interesting aside--even Fathers who used/favored the Septuagint had this interesting custom of limiting the books in their old testament canon to 22 because that's how many letters there are in the Hebrew alphabet. Sts. Athanasius, Hilary of Poitiers, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory the Theologian, and John of Damascus all did this.

Why do the Fathers like to do so and have this custom ?

[Justin Kissel]

I'm not sure why they did so in many cases, they didn't really elaborate much. Here are some quotes...

"There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews..." - St. Athanasius

"But it should be known that there are twenty-two canonical books, according to the Hebrew tradition; the same as the number of the letters of their alphabet." - Origen

"Observe, further, that there are two and twenty books of the Old Testament, one for each letter of the Hebrew tongue. For there are twenty-two letters of which five are double, and so they come to be twenty-seven. For the letters Caph, Mere, Nun, Pe, Sade are double. And thus the number of the books in this way is twenty-two, but is found to be twenty-seven because of the double character of five. For Ruth is joined on to Judges, and the Hebrews count them one book: the first and second books of Kings are counted one: and so are the third and fourth books of Kings: and also the first and second of Paraleipomena: and the first and second of Esdra. In this way, then, the books are collected together in four Pentateuchs and two others remain over, to form thus the canonical books." - St. John of Damascus

"I count therefore, twenty-two of the ancient books, corresponding to the number of the Hebrew letters." - St. Gregory the Theologian

[Cyrillic]

^^

It was only a matter of time 

[Punch]

Should Protestant put those Apocryphal back to their bible and consider them as part of Canonical Scriptures now?

Who cares about what they do?

Every now and then we agree.

[walter1234]

^^

It was only a matter of time  

Protestant will come to an end if it puts those Apocryphos  back their bible.Apocryphos have many contradictions on the faith and doctrine of Protestant .

[Justin Kissel]

To be honest, besides prayer to/for the dead, I'm not sure how important they are doctrinally. And even that one can be shown from other Scriptural passages. 

[walter1234]

To be honest, besides prayer to/for the dead, I'm not sure how important they are doctrinally. And even that one can be shown from other Scriptural passages.  

Martin Luthur opposed to offer the prayers to death mainly due to the false doctrine of pugatory.Why did he also oppose the intercession of saints so much?

( As what I know, Martin dis support the veneration of saints and Mother of God. He only oppose us to honor the saints and Mother of God through offering saints the intercessory prayers.)

[Orthodox11]

I'm not sure why they did so in many cases, they didn't really elaborate much. Here are some quotes...

"There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews..." - St. Athanasius

"But it should be known that there are twenty-two canonical books, according to the Hebrew tradition; the same as the number of the letters of their alphabet." - Origen

"Observe, further, that there are two and twenty books of the Old Testament, one for each letter of the Hebrew tongue. For there are twenty-two letters of which five are double, and so they come to be twenty-seven. For the letters Caph, Mere, Nun, Pe, Sade are double. And thus the number of the books in this way is twenty-two, but is found to be twenty-seven because of the double character of five. For Ruth is joined on to Judges, and the Hebrews count them one book: the first and second books of Kings are counted one: and so are the third and fourth books of Kings: and also the first and second of Paraleipomena: and the first and second of Esdra. In this way, then, the books are collected together in four Pentateuchs and two others remain over, to form thus the canonical books." - St. John of Damascus

"I count therefore, twenty-two of the ancient books, corresponding to the number of the Hebrew letters." - St. Gregory the Theologian

What should also be mentioned, though, is that figures like St. Athanasius also accepted the so-called Apocrypha as books 'worthy to be read' - i.e. authoritative books which could be read liturgically in church as scripture. The term 'Deuterocanon' describes the status of these books quite aptly. I suppose the more correct way of putting it is that the Orthodox Church accepts two forms of Old Testament canon, one smaller (the 22 Jewish books, normally numbered as 39) and one larger.

[Justin Kissel]

True, St. Athanasius did mention a couple deuterocanonical books as being readable/edifying (and also excluded Esther). Then again St. Athanasius quoted certain deuterocanonical books as "Scripture," though at least some of the time he didn't seem to realise what he was quoting. If only he'd had Bible software! 

[mike]

As what I know, Martin dis support the veneration of saints and Mother of God. He only oppose us to honor the saints and Mother of God through offering saints the intercessory prayers.)

What sense would be in that?

[JamesR]

It should also be mentioned that the Septuagint is the oldest complete set of Scriptures that we got, whereas even the Dead Sea Scrolls are not even that old but were made sometime within the 1st century AD. Also, the concept that the Jews had a big Council of Javneh is somewhat speculative at best, because there is no single Jewish canon of Scripture.

[Seraphim98]

Shotgunning a few points on the question:

1. One reason there is no absolutely definitive Eastern canon of Scripture is that in our history there has never been any serious challenge to those books traditionally received as Scripture in the Church.  One normally only sees canons (rules/guidance) as part of the work of a council called to settle some issue disturbing the Church.  Where there is no disturbance there is no council and thus no canons as such.

2. The Orthodox understanding, use, and treatment of the Scriptures is significantly different in a number of respects from western confessions.  There is much less "The Book" consciousness. It is not an independent Oracle of the things of God but finds its primary use in the context of the worship of the Church. Its books by in large are meant to be encountered within the liturgical context of the Church, and only secondarily as a body of work to read for spiritual study and private piety. It is the advent to the printing press that has perhaps too much democratized the Scriptures so that their normative place in communal worship and teaching is obscured by easy private ownership.

3. On a related point the Orthodox Church does not completely separate various spiritual writings in the Church from the Scriptures. It is true that the Scriptures stand at the pinnacle of Christian writings but they do not float like a flying mountain in the sky apart from all the writings of the Saints and fathers that came later. Rather it is all a continuum from the valuable spiritual literature of the present time all the way back to the Gospels which stand highest of all (so far as I know). It is all the teaching of the Holy Spirit in the Church. And just like the Scriptures we depend upon the Tradition, the counsel of Saints and the holy ones among us, those with the grace to teach and break the bread of knowledge and wisdom to help us understand and apply those works of faith that are near to our own time as well as those more distant.  The mind of Christ in the Church guides us all.

4. Thus questions of canonicity of Scripture in the East resonate quite differently than they do in the West.

[walter1234]

The Tankh (sp?) is basically just the Jewish name for what we as Christians would call the Old Testament. Now, as to which Old Testament the Jews use--the Septuagint or the Masoretic--they use both depending on the region. To this day, there still is technically not an official Jewish Canon of the Old Testament. Some Jews in the western world use the Tankh whereas some Jews in places like Ethiopia still use the Septuagint.

Is there any Herbrew Septuagint / Septuagint with Hebrew language?

[Cyrillic]

Is there any Herbrew Septuagint / Septuagint with Hebrew language?

No, the Septuagint is a Greek translation from an ancient Hebrew text of the Old Testament.

[mike]

Is there any Herbrew Septuagint / Septuagint with Hebrew language?

No, the Septuagint is a Greek translation from an ancient Hebrew text of the Old Testament.

IMO he is asking whether there is a Hebrew translation of Septuagint.

[Cyrillic]

Is there any Herbrew Septuagint / Septuagint with Hebrew language?

No, the Septuagint is a Greek translation from an ancient Hebrew text of the Old Testament.

IMO he is asking whether there is a Hebrew translation of Septuagint.

No, that would be as bad as making a Greek translation of the Masoretic. Oh wait....

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Free-For-All > Religious Topics (Moderator: minasoliman) > Topic: Why do Orthodoxy,Catholic and protestant have different canonical scriptures?