Canon of the Bible

[Esdra]

Originally Posted by Aramis

Christ is batized in the Jordan! Glorify Him!

I acquired the bible from Rev. Fr. Leo Walsh... when he cleaned out his office following his reposting to Washington, DC. Mind you, it's in Russian... not in English. Where he got it, I know not.

However, the Orthodox canon OT in English is available at http://orthodoxengland.org.uk/zot.htm for your edification.

Are you talking about an Orthodox (Russian) Bible?

I know where to obtain one!

I bought mine in Russia (St. Petersburg) in summer 2009 for only US$ 5.55 (170 Russian rubel).

But you can buy the same online, here.
But it's of course also in Russian... And since you can't speak/read Russian...

Have you ever obtained the new NRSV Catholic Edition? It also contains all Orthodox deuterocanonical books.

[Alexander Roman]

Dear Friends,

First of all, happy New Year to everyone!

I have in my possession an Orthodox-published Bible from Ukraine which has the proper Orthodox OT canon with the additional six books that are not in the Roman Canon. This Bible has the imprimatur of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic patriarch Lubomyr and ALSO that of the Roman Catholic primate in Lviv.

As for Trent, I think it is important to look at its defined Canon in terms of context - that being that it wanted to underscore the canonicity of those OT books that alluded to doctrines denied by Protestantism such as prayer for the dead and the like.

Did Trent deny the validity of local Canons of Scripture used in the East? Perhaps and perhaps not. Again, the context. Why would Catholic bishops give approval to an Orthodox Bible with the additional six books then?

As for the fourteen Councils of the Roman Church after the first Seven Ecumenical Councils - Pope Paul VI, I believe, alluded to the possibility that they could be recognized, in time, as "Local Roman Councils."

In fact, the RC 14 Councils taught the East NOTHING that it didn't already believe (save for the heavy dose of scholasticism they brought into play).

The so-called "Union Councils" of Lyons and Florence were unqualified flops since only a small portion of the Easterners signed them and that usually followed by an abjuration later.

Those Councils were really about RC matters and problems arising from Western issues that didn't affect Eastern Church life. They are largely irrelevant to Eastern Church life and theology. Even the Vatican II document on the Eastern Catholic Churches is really a "Latin document on the Churches of the Christian East." The Orthodox were wholly unimpressed with it and in fact Rome would have done better to have left the entire question alone. The continued existence of the Congregation for the Eastern Catholic Churches is, in and of itself, an irrelevancy at best and a carry-over of the times when Eastern Churches coming into union with Rome were placed in a Congregation that dealt with pagans etc.

It should have been done away with a long time ago and it only hurts the cause of Catholic-Orthodox unity. Rome has frozen the issue of a patriarchate for the UGCC and also set limits to its growth, I am to understand. What gross ingratitude and bad treatment of a Church that has shed so much martyric blood for its union with Rome!! I've no words . . . But I digress.

Also, there are many orthodox (small"o") books that have always been read by Christians but didn't make it into the Canon. They are part of Tradition and are INDEED inspired as their pith and substance made it into liturgical services (e.g. the feast of the Presentation of our Lady in the Temple comes from just such a source). Scripture is inspired but so is Tradition and those orthodox books, icons etc. form part of the unbroken Tradition of the Church.

So is Clement I not inspired? It's not part of the Canon of Scripture, but that doesn't mean that it isn't an Apostolic witness to the Faith. As such, it is inspired indeed.

Alex

[Cecilianus]

Originally Posted by Alexander Roman

Dear Friends,

First of all, happy New Year to everyone!

I have in my possession an Orthodox-published Bible from Ukraine which has the proper Orthodox OT canon with the additional six books that are not in the Roman Canon. This Bible has the imprimatur of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic patriarch Lubomyr and ALSO that of the Roman Catholic primate in Lviv.

In English or Ukrainian? I would really like to find a physical hardcopy of the Holy Scriptures (in English) with those additional books.

As for Trent, I think it is important to look at its defined Canon in terms of context - that being that it wanted to underscore the canonicity of those OT books that alluded to doctrines denied by Protestantism such as prayer for the dead and the like.

Did Trent deny the validity of local Canons of Scripture used in the East? Perhaps and perhaps not. Again, the context. Why would Catholic bishops give approval to an Orthodox Bible with the additional six books then?

As for the fourteen Councils of the Roman Church after the first Seven Ecumenical Councils - Pope Paul VI, I believe, alluded to the possibility that they could be recognized, in time, as "Local Roman Councils."

In fact, the RC 14 Councils taught the East NOTHING that it didn't already believe (save for the heavy dose of scholasticism they brought into play).

The so-called "Union Councils" of Lyons and Florence were unqualified flops since only a small portion of the Easterners signed them and that usually followed by an abjuration later.

But, morally speaking, they should have been a success. And since our Churches came into union with Rome later, I think we really can claim them as our heritage - both part of the same effort on the part of Rome to bring us back into union.

Those Councils were really about RC matters and problems arising from Western issues that didn't affect Eastern Church life. They are largely irrelevant to Eastern Church life and theology. Even the Vatican II document on the Eastern Catholic Churches is really a "Latin document on the Churches of the Christian East." The Orthodox were wholly unimpressed with it and in fact Rome would have done better to have left the entire question alone. The continued existence of the Congregation for the Eastern Catholic Churches is, in and of itself, an irrelevancy at best and a carry-over of the times when Eastern Churches coming into union with Rome were placed in a Congregation that dealt with pagans etc.

It should have been done away with a long time ago and it only hurts the cause of Catholic-Orthodox unity. Rome has frozen the issue of a patriarchate for the UGCC and also set limits to its growth, I am to understand. What gross ingratitude and bad treatment of a Church that has shed so much martyric blood for its union with Rome!! I've no words . . . But I digress.

Also, there are many orthodox (small"o") books that have always been read by Christians but didn't make it into the Canon. They are part of Tradition and are INDEED inspired as their pith and substance made it into liturgical services (e.g. the feast of the Presentation of our Lady in the Temple comes from just such a source). Scripture is inspired but so is Tradition and those orthodox books, icons etc. form part of the unbroken Tradition of the Church.

So is Clement I not inspired? It's not part of the Canon of Scripture, but that doesn't mean that it isn't an Apostolic witness to the Faith. As such, it is inspired indeed.

Alex

[Alexander Roman]

Dear Cecilianus,

What you say is absolutely correct - the Union of Brest in 1596, for example, was based on the theological conclusions of the Council of Florence. And St Peter Akerovych, Metropolitan of Kyiv, was present at the union Council of Lyons (some even say he both signed the instrument of union and remained in union with Rome for the rest of his life - an opinion only).

Insofar as Rome today has rejected the historic "unia" model as a format for legitimate church union - both Lyons and Florence represent a perspective consigned to the ecclesiological dustbin .

Despite this, I do hope that Rome remembers that we EC's are still around, especially when Rome's men go to hold talks with the Orthodox.

I was conversing with a priest of the Patriarchal parishes in the U.S. at one time. At the time, I expressed some disparaging remarks about the Union of Brest.

He actually chided me, then and there, for that, saying, "Don't criticize the Unia - it was God's Will that it occurred and good has and will come out of it . . ."

You could have knocked me over with a dikerion!

Alex

[Alexander Roman]

Dear Cecilianus,

The bible is in Ukrainian only. It's the first time I've ever seen not only an EC hierarch but also an RC hierarch give it their approval (how ecumenical is that?!).

What is more - the psalter is actually organized according to the 20 kathismata with stases for liturgical use. The Ukrainian is excellent, literary and without any trace of Russification. I have enshrined this Bible at home and use it regularly.

Cheers,

Alex

[nectarios]

I love this thread... Alot of great information provided and discussed. Thank you brethren.

[nectarios]

Originally Posted by ciero

Yes it does.

Just because we CHOOSE to be in communion with Rome does NOT mean that ROME dictates our traditions to us.

Please, Please list how yours is different.

[Esdra]

Originally Posted by Cecilianus

In English or Ukrainian? I would really like to find a physical hardcopy of the Holy Scriptures (in English) with those additional books.

Sorry if I repeat myself!
But do you know about the NRSV with the (expanded - meaning containing the Orthodox books of the OT also) Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical Books?
I have it at home - and as far as I know, this is the first English Bible that contains the Catholic deuterocanonical Books as well as the Orthodox (Even 4 Maccabees is contained, which i.e. isn't to be found in the Russian Orthodox Bible).

If you know German the Septuagint in German could be your choice.
It was published in 2010 by the Publishing Board of the Evangelical Churches in Germany.

[Cecilianus]

Originally Posted by Esdra

Sorry if I repeat myself!
But do you know about the NRSV with the (expanded - meaning containing the Orthodox books of the OT also) Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical Books?
I have it at home - and as far as I know, this is the first English Bible that contains the Catholic deuterocanonical Books as well as the Orthodox (Even 4 Maccabees is contained, which i.e. isn't to be found in the Russian Orthodox Bible).

If you know German the Septuagint in German could be your choice.
It was published in 2010 by the Publishing Board of the Evangelical Churches in Germany.

No, I didn't - thanks!

[nectarios]

Originally Posted by Esdra

Sorry if I repeat myself!
But do you know about the NRSV with the (expanded - meaning containing the Orthodox books of the OT also) Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical Books?
I have it at home - and as far as I know, this is the first English Bible that contains the Catholic deuterocanonical Books as well as the Orthodox (Even 4 Maccabees is contained, which i.e. isn't to be found in the Russian Orthodox Bible).

If you know German the Septuagint in German could be your choice.
It was published in 2010 by the Publishing Board of the Evangelical Churches in Germany.

I believe the NAB was the first to contain them in 20th century, but didnt Douay-Rheims in much earlier times?

[Cecilianus]

Originally Posted by nectarios

I believe the NAB was the first to contain them in 20th century, but didnt Douay-Rheims in much earlier times?

My Douay doesn't have books like 3rd and 4th Esdras and 3rd and 4th Maccabees or the Prayer of Manasseh, and I've never personally seen a Catholic Bible that did. However, all Catholic Bibles (and many Protestant Bibles, including the original King James) have all the books on the canon promulgated by councils such as Trent - e.g., Tobias, the Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus/Sirach, and 1 and 2 Maccabees.

I've also never seen a Bible with books unique to the Ethiopians (1 and 2 Enoch and Jubilees).

[Aramis]

Originally Posted by Esdra

Sorry if I repeat myself!
But do you know about the NRSV with the (expanded - meaning containing the Orthodox books of the OT also) Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical Books?
I have it at home - and as far as I know, this is the first English Bible that contains the Catholic deuterocanonical Books as well as the Orthodox (Even 4 Maccabees is contained, which i.e. isn't to be found in the Russian Orthodox Bible).

If you know German the Septuagint in German could be your choice.
It was published in 2010 by the Publishing Board of the Evangelical Churches in Germany.

Actually, my Russian Orthodox bible has 4 Mac.... in an appendix. Same place my Catholic one does.

[Alexander Roman]

Originally Posted by Cecilianus

My Douay doesn't have books like 3rd and 4th Esdras and 3rd and 4th Maccabees or the Prayer of Manasseh, and I've never personally seen a Catholic Bible that did. However, all Catholic Bibles (and many Protestant Bibles, including the original King James) have all the books on the canon promulgated by councils such as Trent - e.g., Tobias, the Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus/Sirach, and 1 and 2 Maccabees.

I've also never seen a Bible with books unique to the Ethiopians (1 and 2 Enoch and Jubilees).

In addition to the Books of Enoch and Jubilees in the Ethiopian OT canon, they include the eight books of the Apostolic Constitutions in their New Testament Canon for a total of 35 NT books.

The Assyrian Church of the East only has 22 books in its NT canon.

The Ethiopians also have a "wider" biblical canon that includes such books as "The Ascension of Elijah" and others.

In the Celtic tradition, the Books of the Shepherd of Hermas and the Apostles Creed were included in their NT of long ago.

Alex

[Esdra]

Originally Posted by Aramis

Actually, my Russian Orthodox bible has 4 Mac.... in an appendix. Same place my Catholic one does.

Seems as if I've another version than you then.
My last book in the OT is 2 Esdras. There is no appendix.

[Aramis]

Originally Posted by Esdra

Seems as if I've another version than you then.
My last book in the OT is 2 Esdras. There is no appendix.

It's quite likely; my Orthodox bible was purchased in Alaska, and might have been imported; I never looked at where it was published, but I purchased it in Alaska.