Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Categories 13.8K
- General Category 10.9K
- General Announcements 184
- Faith Issues 3.4K
- Coptic Orthodox Church 2.5K
- Personal Issues 1.4K
- Prayer Requests 423
- Random Issues 1.8K
- Introductions 294
- Non-Orthodox Inquiries 232
- Youth Corner 606
- Hymns 2.5K
- Hymns Discussion 2.5K
- Technicial Difficulties 368
- Technical Topics 368
The Septuagint Bible
I'm a little confused!
As I am aware, the old testament of the Holy Bible is derived from the Septuagint Bible. Now 10 of the books have been omited by the protestants in the NKJV of the bible. 7 of the 10 have been classed as second canonical books, and as such are supported by the church. But there are 3 more books, namely 3 & 4 Maccabees and 1 Esdras.
As such, I am curious as to the church's standings on these 3 books, and whether they are classed as apocrypha?
In any case, why have they been ommited from being considered as second canonical books?
Regards,
Doogie
As I am aware, the old testament of the Holy Bible is derived from the Septuagint Bible. Now 10 of the books have been omited by the protestants in the NKJV of the bible. 7 of the 10 have been classed as second canonical books, and as such are supported by the church. But there are 3 more books, namely 3 & 4 Maccabees and 1 Esdras.
As such, I am curious as to the church's standings on these 3 books, and whether they are classed as apocrypha?
In any case, why have they been ommited from being considered as second canonical books?
Regards,
Doogie
Comments
3 & 4 Maccabees are considered deuterocanonical books, not for our Church, but for the Orthodox Churches that were present in the Synod of Jerusalem (a Byzantinian Orthodox ecumenical council).
Only the 3rd Book of Maccabees is included in the canon of all the EO Churches. 4th Maccabees is not included, but is placed in the appendix to the Greek OT.
But why doesn't the Coptic Orthodox church consider these books as second canonical also as in the case of the other deutrocanonical books such as Tobit and so forth.
why is there a lack of unity with respect to the books that are considered second canonical amongst the different churches, particularly when most of these churches can be considered sister churches??
by the way, is the coptic church considered an Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox church??
Thanx
Doogie
But why doesn't the Coptic Orthodox church consider these books as second canonical also as in the case of the other deutrocanonical books such as Tobit and so forth.
why is there a lack of unity with respect to the books that are considered second canonical amongst the different churches, particularly when most of these churches can be considered sister churches??
The Bible is not a single book, but a collection of books. While the New Testament canon was firmly established by the 4th century, no such thing can be said for the Old Testament. Which books are included, and why, has a lot to do with usage and availability.
In the ancient Church, the Bible did not exist as a convenient single volume. Some churches might have been in posession of certain books that were unavailable elsewhere. This probably has a lot to do with which books were accepted in the different local churches.
We must also bear in mind that, since the Church has always regarded the Bible as one part of a larger body of Holy Tradition, and not a stand-alone feature, there has never really been a need to clearly define what is in and out.
For example, the Church accepts large portions (if not all) of the Protoevangelion of James, yet does not include this book in the New Testament. We have big celebrations and feasts based purely on events described in this book, as well as iconography, hymnography, Patristic writings, etc. to complement it. It is an integral part of our faith. The same can be said of other books such as the Didache. Yet they are not included in the New Testament canon. Oriental
The Oriental Orthodox Church is made up of the following churches:
Alexandria +Coptic+ (under H.H. Pope Shenouda III)
Antioch +Syriac/Jacobite+ (under H.H. Ignatius Zakka)
Armenia
India +Malankara+
Ethiopia +Tewahedo+
Eritrea +Tewahedo+
This Church is also often referred to as pre/non-Chalcedonian.
The Eastern Orthodox Church consists of the following churches:
Constantinople*
Alexandria* (under H.B. Pope Theodoros II)
Antioch* (under H.H. Ignatius Hazem IV)
Jerusalem*
Moscow
Georgia
Serbia
Romania*
Bulgaria*
Albania*
Cyprus*
Greece*
Poland
Czech lands and Slovakia
OCA
etc.
This Church is often called Chalcedonian. The Eastern Orthodox churches with an * are also called Byzantine, Greek Orthodox or Roman Orthodox since they use the liturgical rite of the Byzantine or Eastern Roman Empire. Those without the * use the Russian/Slavic rite.
In the ancient Church, the Bible did not exist as a convenient single volume. Some churches might have been in posession of certain books that were unavailable elsewhere. This probably has a lot to do with which books were accepted in the different local churches.
We must also bear in mind that, since the Church has always regarded the Bible as one part of a larger body of Holy Tradition, and not a stand-alone feature, there has never really been a need to clearly define what is in and out.
I think that is something that is largely missed by the Reformed Churches and even us.
[quote author=Doogie link=topic=5737.msg76684#msg76684 date=1189433233]
But why doesn't the Coptic Orthodox church consider these books as second canonical also as in the case of the other deutrocanonical books such as Tobit and so forth.
why is there a lack of unity with respect to the books that are considered second canonical amongst the different churches, particularly when most of these churches can be considered sister churches??
The Bible is not a single book, but a collection of books. While the New Testament canon was firmly established by the 4th century, no such thing can be said for the Old Testament. Which books are included, and why, has a lot to do with usage and availability.
In the ancient Church, the Bible did not exist as a convenient single volume. Some churches might have been in posession of certain books that were unavailable elsewhere. This probably has a lot to do with which books were accepted in the different local churches.
We must also bear in mind that, since the Church has always regarded the Bible as one part of a larger body of Holy Tradition, and not a stand-alone feature, there has never really been a need to clearly define what is in and out.
For example, the Church accepts large portions (if not all) of the Protoevangelion of James, yet does not include this book in the New Testament. We have big celebrations and feasts based purely on events described in this book, as well as iconography, hymnography, Patristic writings, etc. to complement it. It is an integral part of our faith. The same can be said of other books such as the Didache. Yet they are not included in the New Testament canon. Oriental
The Oriental Orthodox Church is made up of the following churches:
Alexandria *Coptic* (under H.H. Pope Shenouda III)
Antioch *Syriac/Jacobite* (under H.H. Ignatius Zakka)
Armenia
India *Malankara*
Ethiopia *Tweahedo*
Eritrea *Tewahedo*
This Church is also often referred to as pre/non-Chalcedonian.
The Eastern Orthodox Church consists of the following churches:
Constantinople*
Alexandria* (under H.B. Pope Theodoros II)
Antioch* (under H.H. Ignatius Hazem IV)
Jerusalem*
Moscow
Georgia
Serbia
Romania*
Bulgaria*
Albania*
Cyprus*
Greece*
Poland
Czech lands and Slovakia
OCA
etc.
This Church is often called Chalcedonian. The EO churches with an * are also called Byzantine, Greek Orthodox or Roman Orthodox since they use the liturgical rite of the Byzantine or Eastern Roman Empire. Those without the * use the Russian/Slavic rite.
Wow, I never knew that the Coptic Church was considered Byzantinian. I thought it was just Oriental Orthodox, but nothing more.
Wow, I never knew that the Coptic Church was considered Byzantinian. I thought it was just Oriental Orthodox, but nothing more.
It's not. I said those EO churches (i.e. Eastern Orthodox - those in the second list) with an * are also called Byzantine.
I'll change the post to avoid any confusion.
[quote author=bballdude23 link=topic=5737.msg76808#msg76808 date=1189632299]
Wow, I never knew that the Coptic Church was considered Byzantinian. I thought it was just Oriental Orthodox, but nothing more.
It's not. I said those EO churches (i.e. Eastern Orthodox - those in the second list) with an * are also called Byzantine.
I'll change the post to avoid any confusion.
Oh, sorry about that. Anyways, back to the books, so then, 4 Maccabees, is only in the Greek Appendix and that's it.
Just with respect to these 3 books, 1 Esdras and 3 & 4 Maccabees, does the church advise against us reading them?
which brings me to my next point, how about the apocryphic books, such as the book of Enoch etc etc, are we advised against reading them?
Regards,
Doogie
Thanks guys for your posts, much appreciated.
Just with respect to these 3 books, 1 Esdras and 3 & 4 Maccabees, does the church advise against us reading them?
which brings me to my next point, how about the apocryphic books, such as the book of Enoch etc etc, are we advised against reading them?
Regards,
Doogie
From what I heard, the Church advises us not to read the Apocryphal books of which the Church does not recognize because it does not want to confuse the believers about their faith. (Correct me if I am wrong)