www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Traditional O.T. Canons

Dear Friends,

I know there is some variance among the various Orthodox Eastern Churches regarding the O.T. Canon. How about we list them out to get a greater understanding of the differences?

Here is the Armenian Orthodox OT Canon as contained in the edition made for English Speaking Armenians:

Asdvadzashunch "Breath of God"
Holy Bible, Armenian Church Edition ordered by Archbishop Khajag Barsamian, Primate of the Diocese of the Armenian Church of America.

Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
Joshua
Judges
Ruth
1-4 Kings (1-2 Samuel & 1-2 Kings)
1-2 Paralipomenon (1-2 Chronicles)
Ezra
Nehemiah
Tobit
Judith
Esther
Job
Psalms (151 Psalms)
Proverbs
Ecclesiastes
The Song of Soloman
Wisdom
Ecclesiasticus (Sirach)
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Lamentations
Baruch
Ezechiel
Daniel
Hosea
Joel
Amos
Obadiah
Jonah
Michah
Nahum
Habakkuk
Zephaniah
Haggai
Zachariah
Malachi
1-2 Maccabees
1-2 Esdras
Prayer of Manesseh

-----------------------------
As for the Latin Church the Old Catholic Encyclopedia states the following:

The most explicit definition of the Catholic Canon is that given by the Council of Trent, Session IV, 1546. For the Old Testament its catalogue reads as follows:

The five books of Moses (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy), Josue, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first and second of Esdras (which latter is called Nehemias), Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidic Psalter (in number one hundred and fifty Psalms), Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel, the twelve minor Prophets (Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacue, Sophonias, Aggeus, Zacharias, Malachias), two books of Machabees, the first and second.

Some Orthodox Churches also accept the third and fourth book of Maccabees.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him Forever!

Would the Orthodox Churches in union with Rome hold to the same canons of Scripture as those Orthodox Churches out of union with Rome?

Adam

Dear Adam,

Based on what Old Rome has said about our being faithful to our authentic traditions, I would hope so.

In Christ's Light,

Wm.

I'm surprised and a bit alarmed at how nonchalant some are about the lack of uniformity in the Canon. Scripture, along with Tradition, is of the utmost importance in both Catholic and Orthodox life. Without even knowing what books count as inspired Scripture, I don't see how the Church could function on these principals (in this case I mean principALS, not principLES...I believe).

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that most Orthodox Churches' Canon is the same as the Catholic Church's. BTW there is no variance between different sui iuris canons, and there need not be.

ChristTeen287

ChristTeen287

Dear CT287,

you said:
I'm surprised and a bit alarmed at how nonchalant some are about the lack of uniformity in the Canon.

reply:
I know how you feel. I felt this too when I first started realizing this.

you said:
Scripture, along with Tradition, is of the utmost importance in both Catholic and Orthodox life. Without even knowing what books count as inspired Scripture, I don't see how the Church could function on these principals (in this case I mean principALS, not principLES...I believe).

reply:
Don't worry about the spelling, I'm no English expert myself (as you can tell by my posts). I don't see how having a variance of a couple of Old Testament books can be viewed as not "knowing what books count as inspried Scripture."

you said:
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that most Orthodox Churches' Canon is the same as the Catholic Church's.

reply:
More or less, yes.

you said:
BTW there is no variance between different sui iuris canons, and there need not be.

reply:
sui iuris is defined as: "of its own right; an acknowledged autonomy with regard to government and discipline." So when you say, "there is no difference between sui iuris canons," I'm translating: "there is no difference between 'of its own right' canons." This is not computing. Did you mean there is no difference between the canons of the Churches sui iuris or Churches of their own right? If so, are you sure about this? Have you really studied the Canons of each Church sui iuris and come to this conclusion? Or are you just basing this on a decree of the Latin Church? The reasons I ask is because I been informed that at least one of the Eastern Catholic Churches do follow a more extensive OT Canon. BTW there is no discrepency about the NT Canons. The question only revolves around some Orthodox Churches that have a fuller OT Canon corresponding to editions of the Septuagint.

In Christ's Light,

Wm. Der-Ghazarian

There is a difference on the books included in the Greek and Slavonic versions of the OT.

The Greek version of the OT includes all of the Catholic canon as accepted by the Council of Trent and included in the Douay-Rhiems Bible, but also includes Psalm 151 (the song of David) and 3rd & 4th Maccabees. 2 Esdras is not included in the Greek OT.

In the Slavonic OT, both 1 and 2 Esdras are included, Psalm 151 is included and 3 Maccabees is included. 4 Maccabees and the Song of Manassah are not included in the Slavonic OT.

So basically, the books not included in the Catholic OT compared to the Greek OT are Psalm 151, 3 and 4 Maccabees.

As Orthodox in communion with Rome, we can accept all of the books of the Greek or Slavonic canon of the OT. These canons are an ancient and venerable part of the tradition of the Byzantine Church. Rome has never formally anathemetized the three additional books recognized by the Greek canon of the OT, but has only formally anathemitized any ommissions of the canon of the OT accepted by the Council of Trent.

I won't repeat what has already been stated, other than to summarize that the only difference between the Catholic and Orthodox canon is 3 and 4 Maccabees (and there is some variance between Slavonic and Greek bibles regarding these books) and Psalm 151, and that's about it.

However, not to be too "nit-picky" but I think a better (more orthodox) understanding of the relationship between Scripture and Tradition, at least in the best of Orthodox theology, is that Scripture is part (the most important part or expression) of what makes up "Tradition," including the Holy Canons, Liturgy and liturgical texts, writings of the Fathers, iconography, etc... I only say this because I think it is an important disctinction, at least in the Orthodox understanding, that there is the Tradtion, and that's it, scripture being an important expression of the Tradition. Although some Orthodox writers have made the claim that Orthodox believe in Scripture AND Tradition, I believe that this is a flawed understanding of the Orthodox view of Scripture.

Priest Thomas

Do Orthodox consider the deuterocanonicals to be equal to or of lesser inspiration than the other OT books?

I wonder why the Orthodox have always published Old and New Testaments as two separate volumes, and never together, as other Christians do? It would be nice if there were an Orthodox Bible with both together.

Well put Fr. Thomas! I wish I could put it that beautifully.

Dear Jeff,
The Orthodox haven't published that many versions of the Bible in English to my knowledge. Which ones are you referring to? The "Orthodox Study Bible" had only the OT Psalms with the NT because they didn't have the money and time to make a full translation of the traditional Greek OT. I have an Armenian Orthodox Bible which contains the entire New and Old Testaments in the RSVCE edition. For more information on a monumental Orthodox OT project see:

http://www.lxx.org/

In Christ's Light,

Wm Der-Ghazarian

Dear Ghazar,

I recently acquired this edition. One thing I find confusing is that in the introduction, on an unnumbered page entitled "The Canon of the Bible" Fr. Vahan says that 1-4 Macabees were in the LXX and that consequently were accepted by the Armenian Church. Yet, in this edition it only has 1-2 Macabees. I presume you have this edition, it is on the fourth unnumbered page of the introduction. I am curious what is going on there.

Tony

Someone should post the contents of the Ethiopian Canon of Scripture. Calling Dr. Alex!

Dave

Dear Dave,

Hello!

The Ethiopians have TWO canons of the Old Testament, the "narrow" and the "wider."

The narrow Canon has the books of the Greek and Russian canons, BUT with the Book of Enoch and the Book of Jubilees.

The "wider" Canon includes some other books that are generally read for edification, such as the Ascension of Elias and the like.

Their New Testament also includes the 8 books of the Apostolic Constitutions.

The Greeks, as I understand it, have the Fourth Book of Maccabees in their bible, but do not consider it as on a par with the rest of the Old Testament - they read it for purposes of inspiration as it is integral to the first three books of the Maccabees, much in the same way that I and II Clement with the Prayer of Manasses was once included in an appendix to the Roman Vulgate Bible.

Alex

Dear Westerner Gone East,

One reason why the Orthodox publish biblical volumes separately is for liturgical and devotional reasons.

For example, the New Testament is divided into two books - the Evangelion or the four Books of the Gospels taken together and the Apostolos or the rest of the Bible.

Monastics and others tend to read these two as separate entities, as we see in the Monastic rule:

"Read one chapter of the Gospels and then two chapters of the Epistle a day and you will have read both in the same amount of time." (or three months).

The same is true of the Old Testament with the Psalter being a separate liturgical book etc.

It is just that the Gospel (meaning the four as one) is honoured as the heart of the Bible and is often issued separately.

It is common for Orthodox Christians to have a special Gospel book enshrined in their icon corner so they may venerate it etc.

In addition, as we read in the writings of St Nicodemos of the Holy Mountain, there is the practice to consider chapters 13-17 of the Gospel of John as a separate entity for private reading, the "Testament of Christ."

Nicodemos says this is the heart of the Bible and the Greeks especially have the tradition of reading it separately even from the Gospels themselves. One could read 22 verses of chapters 13-17 and so have the same number of verses for each day of the week, FYI.

Fr. Thomas above is more than correct, as usual, and I am very sorry not to have been able to meet with him when he was visiting here in Toronto!

I am complimented by the very fact that he even desired to see me in person!!

Alex

Alex,

Surely there are competing traditions regarding this because the Slavonic Apostol that I have does not have "the rest of the Bible." The Apocalypse, or Revelation, is missing. It seems that is because it is not read liturgically. Further, the Russian Slavonic Apostol has much more than Scripture; it has the prokimena and alleluiaria in tables, a menaion with indications, the lives of the Apostles, and more.

Of course the Bible is published as a whole. I have it in Slavonic published in Saint Petersburg around the turn of the century (1900), OT and NT, full canon with some aparatus.

Tony