Should Catholics read the books in the Orthodox Bible?


#1

I heard that the EO have more books in the Bible than Catholics. Can someone tell me if they should be read by Catholics?


#2

all the ones in the new American bible catholic printing all the books there are accepted by the council of trent


#3

Yes, they can [and I think *should] be read by Catholics. The books in the Catholic [read: Latin Catholic] bible are those that were codified at Trent - i.e. the mid-15th century, prior to which there was no official Church canon of Scripture. Not to say that the composition of the canon isn’t important, but what exactly is divine inspired Scripture, or not, is debated - hence why Byzantine Catholic keep those “Orthodox” parts, such as the Prayer of Manasseh.

In fact, before the Council of Trent the Vulgate contained the Prayer of Manasseh (as well as two other books, 1 and 2 Esdras). They were removed from the Latin Church’s canon citing a 4th century North African local synod. The fact that it was removed, however, does not necessarily deny its divine inspiration. Furthermore, I think the Gospel of Peter is a helpful book for Syriacs (although not canonical). There are additional items, like Psalm 151, which are again perfectly fine to be read by Catholics. If they are found in any of the Apostolic Churchs’ canon, it does not teach anything heretical.


#4

Well you have to be careful. You might get Orthodox cooties…


#5

I’m not asking if the extra books are formally, or even unformally scripture, but whether they are good books that can or should be read by a Catholic… think, like a spiritual book with a nihil obstat or something.


#6

] be read by Catholics. The books in the Catholic [read: Latin Catholic] bible are those that were codified at Trent - i.e. the mid-15th century, prior to which there was no official Church canon of Scripture. Not to say that the composition of the canon isn’t important, but what exactly is divine inspired Scripture, or not, is debated - hence why Byzantine Catholic keep those “Orthodox” parts, such as the Prayer of Manasseh.

In fact, before the Council of Trent the Vulgate contained the Prayer of Manasseh (as well as two other books, 1 and 2 Esdras). They were removed from the Latin Church’s canon citing a 4th century North African local synod. The fact that it was removed, however, does not necessarily deny its divine inspiration. Furthermore, I think the Gospel of Peter is a helpful book for Syriacs (although not canonical). There are additional items, like Psalm 151, which are again perfectly fine to be read by Catholics. If they are found in any of the Apostolic Churchs’ canon, it does not teach anything heretical.

Thanks :slight_smile:


#7

Well they were read by Catholics as part of Scripture for at least a 1,000 years so I’m sure they’re fine. :wink:


#8

This thread should be merged with [thread=910755]Old Testament Books for Eastern Catholics[/thread]. I commented there. No reason to repeat myself.


#9

In fact I imagine these books still are part of the canon for Byzantine Catholics. Of course I could be wrong.


#10

More info here:

catholicbridge.com/catholic/orthodox/why_orthodox_bible_is_different_from_catholic.php

Now, this was modified somewhat when, at both the Byzantine Council of Trullo (692) and the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea II (787), both the church of Constantinople and the church of Antioch (along with Rome and Alexandria) recognized the binding canons of the Council of Carthage (397). This of course included the Carthaginian Biblical canon, which is thus TECHNICALLY binding on the modern Eastern Orthodox Church. :slight_smile: Yet, in terms of practice, the Antiochian (and thus Byzantine) parts of the Eastern Orthodox Church continued to use pre-Carthaginian books in their local canons …and for the simple reason that these books (e.g. 3 & 4 Maccabees or the apocryphal Esdras, etc.) were always read in the church of Antioch. The fact that the council of Carthage excluded these books (because they contain some problematic material) was ignored. And it’s because of this neglect of the Carthaginian canon (as authorized by both Trullo and Nicaea II) that modern Eastern Orthodoxy (coming out of the Antiochian Liturgical tradition) often include such books in their published canons today. Yet, technically, they SHOULD consider themselves bound by Trullo’s and Nicaea II’s authorization of Carthage. :slight_smile:


#11

] be read by Catholics. The books in the Catholic [read: Latin Catholic] bible are those that were codified at Trent - i.e. the mid-15th century, prior to which there was no official Church canon of Scripture. Not to say that the composition of the canon isn’t important, but what exactly is divine inspired Scripture, or not, is debated - hence why Byzantine Catholic keep those “Orthodox” parts, such as the Prayer of Manasseh.

In fact, before the Council of Trent the Vulgate contained the Prayer of Manasseh (as well as two other books, 1 and 2 Esdras). They were removed from the Latin Church’s canon citing a 4th century North African local synod. The fact that it was removed, however, does not necessarily deny its divine inspiration. Furthermore, I think the Gospel of Peter is a helpful book for Syriacs (although not canonical). There are additional items, like Psalm 151, which are again perfectly fine to be read by Catholics. If they are found in any of the Apostolic Churchs’ canon, it does not teach anything heretical.I disagree. Council of Rome in 382 with Pope St. Damascas and Synods in Hippo and Carthage in the 390’s declared what the canon for the Church was. How/where the East picked up/added the ‘extra’ books I do not know.


#12

A canon was prescribed but it can’t be called the canon. That has never existed and still doesn’t till this day. So to say that the Orthodox have “added” books to the canon is not accurate.


#13

If you ask any Scripture scholar, the Vulgate contained the Prayer of Manasseh, 1 Esdras and 2 Esdras (“extra books” as you call them) until the Council of Trent in the 16th century. Furthermore, Carthage is cited at Trent for determining the LATIN Church’s canon (as opposed to the Church, which includes the Byzantines) but Trent is really the definitive codification. I assure you.


#14

I disagree. Trullo also promulgates the canons attributed to the Holy Apostles, which has a differing canon of scripture.


#15

I believe there were variations in the books that made up the Septuagint.


#16

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.