www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Scripture and Patristic Writings Eastern Catholics and the Latin Catholic Canon of Scripture

How do Eastern Catholics regard the Decrees of the Council of Trent on the Canon of Scripture, given that Trent rejects 3&4 Maccabees, 3&4 Esdras and Psalm 151? If, indeed, the Eastern Catholics are to fully embrace their heritage, should they not also accept these books?

I'm also puzzled by the claim made by many Western Catholic apologists that we Catholics use the 46-book OT because "that's what the Septuagint has". I've done enough research to realize that 1) there's no standard "Septuagint", 2) many manuscripts of the Septuagint have the books accepted by the Orthodox but rejected by Trent, and 3) St. Jerome, the translator who produced the Vulgate, upheld the superiority of the Hebrew texts over those of the Septuagint. If I'm not mistaken, he rejected some books that are in the Catholic / Septuagint OT. I have always been troubled by the inconsistency of arguing for the 46-book OT "because that is what the Septuagint has" then uphold the Vulgate, which, for all its beauty, was the product of the belief that the Hebrew text is superior to the Greek.

Please help me in my perplexities

Asianpilgrim:

I will give only my opinion, which is not authoritative by any means, just the opinion of a Greek Catholic lay person.

Roman Catholics, Eastern Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox all accept the longer Greek canon rather than the Palestinian Canon adopted by Jewish and Protestant faith communities.

My understanding is that the Septuagint is the official Old Testatment for Byzantine Christians, be they Catholic or Orthodox, in the same way that the Latin Vulgate is the official Bible for the Latin Church. As you mention, the Catholic version of the Old Testament has 7 books in addition to the Palestinian Canon, while traditional Orthodox versions contain a few more books that are also in the Septuagint.

Typically, Byzantine Catholics accept the same 7 books in the Old Testament that the Roman Catholics do, because we are in the communion with Peter. We consequently use Catholic Bibles, such as the Jerusalem Bible or New Jerusalem Bible, The Catholic RSV or NRSV, or the New American Bible.

The list of deuterocanonical books at Trent were also approved by local councils in Carthage and Hippo at the end of the 4th century.

3rd Maccabees, 1st Esdras, and Psalm 151 indeed have been considered canonical at times in the Eastern Orthodox Churches, although 4th Macabees is merely an appendix in the Greek Bible. Slavonic Bibles have also included 1st and 2nd Esdras. Later Orthodox Councils such as the council of Jerusalem in 1672 listed the deuterocanon as part of scripture.

However, my understanding is that some Orthodox scholars feel that the Palestinian canon indeed is more authoritative, or at least that the deuterocanonical books are of a lower status than the rest of the Old Testament Books (see Timothy Ware in the Orthodox Church, and Meyendorf in Byzantine Theology).

My understanding is (and perhaps an Orthodox poster can correct me or provide further information) that the Orthodox are not completely agreed on the list of Old Testament books. Generally, they accept a longer canon, but it is debated.

Opinions differ among Byzantine Catholics about whether we should accept as canonical the additional books that have some times been accepted by the Orthodox. Some would say that for us to be more authentic in our Eastern heritage, we should indeed recognize the additional books. Others would say as Catholics in union with Rome, we should accept the 7-book deuterocanon.

In any event, I think it is good and useful as a Byzantine Catholic to have a Bible that has the fuller Old Testament Canon, such as the Oxford RSV Bibles, which include in addition to the seven books in the Catholic Canon, books such as 3rd and 4th Maccabees, Song of Manasseh, Psalm 151, 1st & 2nd Esdras. Oxford publishes the New Oxford Annotated Bible in the RSV with those books, and also a paper back bible of the RSV text for $20 which includes the complete list of Septuagint books.

By the way, 2nd Esdras is actually not in the Septuagint. It only occurs in the Latin Bible, and Slavonic Bibles, that I am aware of.

I am not an expert on the Ethiopian Bibles, but they too, contain more books, including the Book of Jubilees.

Interestingly enough, St. John Damascene also prefers the Hebrew canon. He lists the additional books in the Septuagint (what some call "apocrypha") as being good, pious spiritual reading but not as equal to Scripture. I believe that really there were a variety of opinion in the early Church. I don't know that the Eastern Churches ever came out with an officially defined canon.

Joe

actually, Psalm 151 can be resolved by the fact that in the older Catholic Bibles, a different numbering of Psalms was used. in the NAB, there are "but" 150 Psalms.oh, the other books mentioned above do not appear in the NAB, the offical pulpit Bible of Catholic parishes in the USofA.
Much Love,
Jonn

Lance,

Your post was excellent.

Joe

Actually, John there is a Psalm 151 that is not in Catholic and Protestant Bibles. http://www.athanasius.com/psalms/psalms5.html#151

1 Little was I among my brethren:
A younger brother in my father's house.
2 My hands, they made an instrument of music:
My fingers, they prepared a psaltery.
3 And who shall bring back tidings to my master?
The Lord Himself, Himself gives ear.
4 Himself sent forth His messenger:
And took me from among my father's sheep;
And with the oil of His annointing He annointed me.
5 Comely my brethren were and tall:
And yet they found not favour with the Lord.
6 But I, I sallied forth to meet the alien:
And he reviled me by all his idols.
7 But I drew forth the sword that was beside him:
I cut his head off with it,
And from the sons of Israel removed reproach.

charming little Psalm, especially with the decapitation part. alas, I am afraid that I will never see it in my NAB Bible, though.
Much Love,
Jonn

That must have been the psalm David was singing when Saul threw the spear at him!

As a martial artist, I have a special fondness for that psalm

Joe

I would say since we use it liturgically (at Great Compline) we obviously accept the Prayer of Manesseh as inspired. Since the others are not part of the Lectionary it shouldn't make a big difference either way since no tradition is disrupted by the inclusion or exclusion.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Thanks!

I sometimes wish I would have gone to school for theology rather than psychology, although I think I can be happy in a career in psychology.

That is one of the things I like about this forum, most people are fairly theologically literate, more so than the general population, even church attenders, as far as I can tell.

My understanding that among the fathers who preferred the Palestinian canon were Damascene, Origen, Athanasius, and even Jerome, though he translated the deuterocanonical books. He did not want to translate Tobit at all, but a Bishop friend of his liked the book.

Sometimes the fathers are inconsistent, for even those who favored the Palestinian Canon nevertheless sometimes quote deuterocanonical books as scripture. Jerome is an example of this.

my, these tempermental Mediterraneans!
Much Love,
Jonn

I have come to support the wider Canon, the Church, at least I don't think so, rejected these other books so much, but rather did not include them as part of the Canon.
A new council of reunion could set a new canon as authoritative, dont you think?
Stephanos I