Is 4 Maccabees part of the Deuterocanon in the Georgian Church?

rakovsky

Newbie
Apr 8, 2004
2,552
557
Pennsylvania
✟67,675.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Is 4 Maccabees considered part of the "Deuterocanonical books" in the Georgian Orthodox Church, or is it considered outside the canon totally like Slavonic 3 Esdras / Vulgate 4 Esdras is?

I am currently listening to lectures about the biblical "Deuterocanonical" books, since I am just familiar with the "canonical" books of the Bible.

Jewish rabbis and Protestants believe that there are 39 books in the Old Testament. That list contains the TaNaKh, and among these books are famous ones like Genesis, Ezekiel, Zechariah, etc.

The Russian, Greek, and other Orthodox Churches, as well as the Catholic Church, consider there to be some "Deuterocanonical" biblical books, such as Tobit, Baruch, and some books of the Maccabees. Technically, "Deuterocanon" is a Catholic Church term for this category of books, and it's potentially alittle confusing, because the Catholic Church considers its "Deuterocanonical" books to be fully canonical, due to a post-Schism Catholic "Ecumenical Council" carefully listing their Church's canonical Biblical books.

Unfortunately, the common term in use in the Russian Tradition for these Deuterocanonical books is even less clear. In normal Russian Church parlance, these books are called "non-canonical". Yet some of them like "Wisdom of Solomon" are in fact part of the "canon" of books read aloud in the "canon" of Russian Orthodox services. Furthermore, the Russian Church considers these "noncanonical" (Deuterocanonical) books to be in a separate category than books that it classifies as "sectarian," "apocryphal," etc.

In addition to the Deuterocanonical books, the Russian physical volumes of the Bible also contain the Slavonic 3 Esdras (A.K.A. the Vulgate 4 Esdras) and IV Maccabees. But my understanding is that the Russian Church neither includes these 2 books in either the “Canon,” nor in the “Deuterocanon”.

Slavonic 3 Esdras (AKA Vulgate 4 Esdras) was included in Russian hardcopy Bibles, but not Greek ones for the following historical reason: Historically, the early medieval Church considered 4 Esdras to be apocryphal, but the Western Church, and its Latin translator St. Jerome, included it in the Vulgate's hard copy so that it would not get lost. That is, despite the medieval Church categorizing it as apocrypha, it was printed in Latin Bibles as a kind of non-canonical/apocryphal accessory text just to have it. Meanwhile, the Greek language copies of 3 Esdras did get lost. Finally, when the Russian Church started translating and printing hard copy Bibles in Slavonic, they took the Latin Vulgate Bibles into consideration. And since the Vulgate Bibles included 4 Esdras, the Russian printers included that book too. However, the Russian Church never made a formal decision to categorize Slavonic 3 Esdras as "Canonical," despite it being found today in Russian Orthodox Bibles under the title of 3 Esdras. (IIRC, the Orthodox Study Bible in English calls it "2 Esdras" like the KJV does, which adds to confusion IMO.)

Meanwhile, the Greek Church printed their hardcopy Bibles using the Greek "Alexandrian Codex." This Codex included 4 Maccabees, so the Greek Church historically printed 4 Maccabees along with the Greek Church's canonical books, even though it did not have a formal decision labeling 4 Maccabees canonical. Russian Wikipedia notes that neither the Greek hardcopy Bibles, nor the Russian ones included formal lists of which books in them were "canon" (eg. Genesis) vs. outside the canon or apocryphal (eg. Slav. 3 Esdras and 4 Maccabees).

Thus, the mere fact that the Russian, Greek, or Georgian hardcopy Bibles physically include Slavonic 3 Esdras and 4 Maccabees does not itself prove that any of these Churches consider either one of those 2 books to be either "canonical" or "noncanonical."

It's true that the Quintsext Ecumenical Council of Trullo, which Eastern Orthodox Churches accept as an authority for themselves, addressed the question of the list of books in the Old Testament. Unfortunately, this Council's solution is not very clear at first glance because the Council's solution was to accept the list of books promulgated by Carthage, Laodicea, and some Greek fathers. The difficulty is that Carthage accepted the Deuterocanical books like Wisdom of Solomon and Tobit as "canonical", whereas Laodicea and Greek fathers cited by the Quintsext Council did not consider those Deuterocanonical books to be canonical (or for that matter as even "Deuterocanonical.")

In any case, none of the sources that the Quintsext Council cited considered either Slavonic 3 Esdras or 4 Maccabees to be "canonical" or "Deuterocanonical." Thus, just going by the Ecumenical Councils, it would not seem that the Georgian Church would be accepted those two books (3 Esdras and 4 Maccabees) as Deuterocanonical.

Wikipedia however puts 3 Esdras in the list of Georgian Church Bible canon books with a question mark next to it and puts 4 Maccabees in that list with no question mark.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon

The Wikipedia article on 4 Maccabees says, "It is not in the Bible for most churches, but is an appendix to the Greek Bible, and in the canon of the Georgian Orthodox Church."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4_Maccabees

However, I could not find any source backing this up. I found an online copy of the Georgian Bible, and it did include 3 Esdras and 4 Maccabees. It had those two books, as well as all the books of the Deuterocanon, marked with an * and a footnote saying that they were all , ტექსტი არაკანონიკურია which I think means noncanonical.
(orthodoxy.ge/tserili/biblia/sarchevi.htm)

In Russian Wikipedia's "Biblical Canon" Discussion page ("Обсуждение:Библейский канон"), a few people wrote in that there is no difference between Orthodox Churches on which books are canonical and which ones aren't.

Wlbw68 writes there:
Canon is a rule. In Orthodoxy, there is no special rule for the Greek, Slavic and Georgian local Churches, just as there is no special composition of the books of the Bible. The composition of the canonical books of the Bible is determined by the totality of the rules in the Orthodox Church: 85th Apostolic Canon (IV century), 60th Canon of the Laodicean Council (364) [2], 39th Epistle of Athanasius the Great about holidays (IV century) [3], Poems of Saint Gregory the Theologian (IV century) [4], Verses of Saint Amphilochius of Iconium (IV century) [5], 33th rule of the Council of Carthage [6].

Catholics also have conciliar definitions, with the help of which they determine which books go in the composition of the Bible (they have the so-called Deuterocanonical books). With this one needs to carefully deal with it and look for links. It's the same with the Oriental Churches. ... - Wlbw68 15:30, 23 May 2014

It seems to me that his opinion is correct, unless the Georgian Church is actively teaching something different on this topic. My guess is that the Wikipedia writer got confused about 3 Esdras and 4 Maccabees being in the canon of the Georgian Church because these two books are physically included in the hardcopies of its Bibles.
 

Lukaris

Orthodox Christian
Supporter
Aug 3, 2007
7,840
2,533
Pennsylvania, USA
✟745,599.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
4th Maccabees is an amazing account of martyrdom and really some sort of epic sermon, homily etc. of the saintly mother, her 7 sons, & the priest Eleazar from 2nd Maccabees 7

Bible Gateway passage: 2 Maccabees 7 - Revised Standard Version

which is epic in itself. While I am an unsure if it should be considered scripture, since it is an elaboration of scripture, it does seem akin to a sacred, liturgical hymn. Although structurally distinct from a straight, authoritative faith statement like the creed, it seems to hold a similar status. Also, I am not disputing its position as scripture, it is a valuable writing which (for ex.)I also believe the praises given to the saintly mother influenced later praises that were given to the Theotokos.

Interestingly, the Maccabean martyrs are commemorated at the onset of the fast of the Dormition of the Theotokos.

https://www.oca.org/saints/lives/2001/08/01/102162-7-holy-maccabee-martyrs
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

rakovsky

Newbie
Apr 8, 2004
2,552
557
Pennsylvania
✟67,675.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
pretty sure Georgia includes it
Georgia includes 4 Maccabees in their physical hardcopy Bibles, but this fact alone does not prove whether Georgia considers 4 Maccabees to be part of the "Deuterocanon" or outside the Biblical "canon" entirely.

One reason is that by analogy, the Latin Vulgate includes 3 Esdras, and the Russian Church took its inclusion of 3 Esdras in its Bibles from the Latin Vulgate, but neither the Latin Vulgate's compiler Jerome, nor the Russian Church have considered 3 Esdras even Deuterocanonical.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
41,469
20,026
41
Earth
✟1,456,006.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Georgia includes 4 Maccabees in their physical hardcopy Bibles, but this fact alone does not prove whether Georgia considers 4 Maccabees to be part of the "Deuterocanon" or outside the Biblical "canon" entirely.

no, but the Georgian woman in my parish says it’s part of her canon. I trust what she says.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rakovsky
Upvote 0

rakovsky

Newbie
Apr 8, 2004
2,552
557
Pennsylvania
✟67,675.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
no, but the Georgian woman in my parish says it’s part of her canon. I trust what she says.
Interesting.
I wonder how would happen to be, or what authority in the Georgian Church counts it as "Canon." Conceivably the Georgian Church could have held a Local Council or Synod in its history and decided to include 4 Maccabees in its canon.

I recall reading someplace online that the Georgian Church got their Bible texts from the Armenians, and that this would supposedly explain the composition of the Georgian Bible and any peculiarities in it compared to other EO Churches.

In the Greek Church, 4 Maccabees was placed together with the books of the canon, and only in more recent times it's been put in a separate appendix section in Greek Bibles. It seems that someone in the Greek Church in the past could have seen it printed in the Greek Bibles and thought it was part of the canon.

However, a Georgian Orthodox Bible online marks 4 Maccabees as "non canonical" or "not legitimate" along with all other Old Testament books outside the Rabbinical/Protestant Canon (orthodoxy.ge/tserili/biblia/sarchevi.htm). Thus, it seems to me that at most, it's "Deuterocanon" for the Georgian Church in the same way that the Wisdom of Solomon would be.

A Russian Church Bible from the 20th century did the same kind of thing, which I find a little annoying- the longstanding parlance of the Russian Church has been to call the Deuterocanon "non-canonical" and to distinguish these "non-canonical" books from "Apocryphal" books (eg. Enoch, and I guess Slavonic 3 Esdras), even though some Deuterocanonical books are read aloud in services according to the "canon" of the Russian services.
 
Upvote 0

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
41,469
20,026
41
Earth
✟1,456,006.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Interesting.
I wonder how would happen to be, or what authority in the Georgian Church counts it as "Canon." Conceivably the Georgian Church could have held a Local Council or Synod in its history and decided to include 4 Maccabees in its canon.

I recall reading someplace online that the Georgian Church got their Bible texts from the Armenians, and that this would supposedly explain the composition of the Georgian Bible and any peculiarities in it compared to other EO Churches.

In the Greek Church, 4 Maccabees was placed together with the books of the canon, and only in more recent times it's been put in a separate appendix section in Greek Bibles. It seems that someone in the Greek Church in the past could have seen it printed in the Greek Bibles and thought it was part of the canon.

However, a Georgian Orthodox Bible online marks 4 Maccabees as "non canonical" or "not legitimate" along with all other Old Testament books outside the Rabbinical/Protestant Canon (orthodoxy.ge/tserili/biblia/sarchevi.htm). Thus, it seems to me that at most, it's "Deuterocanon" for the Georgian Church in the same way that the Wisdom of Solomon would be.

A Russian Church Bible from the 20th century did the same kind of thing, which I find a little annoying- the longstanding parlance of the Russian Church has been to call the Deuterocanon "non-canonical" and to distinguish these "non-canonical" books from "Apocryphal" books (eg. Enoch, and I guess Slavonic 3 Esdras), even though some Deuterocanonical books are read aloud in services according to the "canon" of the Russian services.

it was probably a local synod which might have been influenced by the non-Chalcedonians. I dunno, but that does make sense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rakovsky
Upvote 0

rakovsky

Newbie
Apr 8, 2004
2,552
557
Pennsylvania
✟67,675.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
no, but the Georgian woman in my parish says it’s part of her canon. I trust what she says.
It's neat that you asked her and that you talk to your parishioners conversationally about theology like that.

In the Orthodox Church, including the Georgian Church, the Ecumenical Councils are the highest authority. In its second canon, the Quintsext Council (Trullo) made a decision on the canonical list of Biblical books by affirming the lists made by several specific Church Fathers and Local Councils. (Canon 2, Trullo, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3814.htm)
EOs have different opinions on how to put those Fathers' and Local Council lists together, because they don't exactly match each other. For example, in his article, "The Canon of the Holy Scripture," Panagiotis Boumis tries to interpret Trullo's Council as accepting the Deuterocanon, including the Maccabean books, as among the scriptures' canon. Boumis interprets the lists affirmed by Trullo, "inclusively," so that one source's list's limits do not exclude the other source's books.
http://www.ecclesia.gr/greek/press/theologia/material/2007_2_5_Boumis.pdf

But do any of those lists approved by Trullo include 4 Maccabees?

I guess not, because Apostolic Canon 85 accepts only the first 3 Books of the Maccabees:
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3814.htm
This was the only source that I found in Boumis' article that affirmed at least 3 Maccabean books. Carthage's Council only accepts two Maccabean books.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
41,469
20,026
41
Earth
✟1,456,006.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
It's neat that you asked her and that you talk to your parishioners conversationally about theology like that.

In the Orthodox Church, including the Georgian Church, the Ecumenical Councils are the highest authority. In its second canon, the Quintsext Council (Trullo) made a decision on the canonical list of Biblical books by affirming the lists made by several specific Church Fathers and Local Councils. (Canon 2, Trullo, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3814.htm)
EOs have different opinions on how to put those Fathers' and Local Council lists together, because they don't exactly match each other. For example, in his article, "The Canon of the Holy Scripture," Panagiotis Boumis tries to interpret Trullo's Council as accepting the Deuterocanon, including the Maccabean books, as among the scriptures' canon. Boumis interprets the lists affirmed by Trullo, "inclusively," so that one source's list's limits do not exclude the other source's books.
http://www.ecclesia.gr/greek/press/theologia/material/2007_2_5_Boumis.pdf

But do any of those lists approved by Trullo include 4 Maccabees?

I guess not, because Apostolic Canon 85 accepts only the first 3 Books of the Maccabees:
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3814.htm
This was the only source that I found in Boumis' article that affirmed at least 3 Maccabean books. Carthage's Council only accepts two Maccabean books.

well, I guess ask a Georgian historian to see what the historical reason for 4 Mac is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rakovsky
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Lukaris

Orthodox Christian
Supporter
Aug 3, 2007
7,840
2,533
Pennsylvania, USA
✟745,599.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
I wonder if the designation of “IV Maccabees” was an ancient clerical error since the book is really an awe inspiring preaching from the scripture of 2nd Maccabees 7. There are great theological ( & philosophical) insights within 4th Maccabees & it should have some kind of recommended reading status. There does not seem to be any specific revelation given.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rakovsky
Upvote 0

rakovsky

Newbie
Apr 8, 2004
2,552
557
Pennsylvania
✟67,675.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Since the Ecumenical Councils are the highest authority for EOs (including the Georgian Church) and exclude 4 Maccabees, then it would be confusing how the Georgian Church could canonically impose 4 Maccabees as an officially canonical Biblical book. I guess that sometimes EOs could make decisions conflicting with the Ecumenical Councils, but typically these decisions seem more context-specific and deal with practical issues, rather than something that seems as doctrinal as Biblical books. One that comes to mind is the issue of rebaptising converts, which is often thought to be demanded by a Council confirming the Apostolic Canons, but in reality my interpretation of the Council is that the Council in question does not actually impose those Canons' position on the topic.

Then there is also the fact that Georgian Church Bibles are marking 3/4 Esdras, 4 Maccabees, and the Deuterocanon with an asterisk as "noncanonical." I am aware that this printed Bible designation footnote does not really "prove" per se whether 4 Maccabees are in the canon, as opposed to it just being a murky issue like the Deuterocanon's status is in the Russian Church. But it seems that if there was an affirmative Georgian Church decision or history positively and authoritatively identifying 4 Maccabees as "canon", then it seems more likely that those "noncanonical" asterisk marks wouldn't be in Georgian Bibles. And absent any authoritative decision or Tradition in the Georgian Church, then it's status would be the same as in the Russian Church, in which it's completely and clearly not canonical.
 
Upvote 0

Not David

I'm back!
Apr 6, 2018
7,356
5,235
25
USA
✟231,310.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Since the Ecumenical Councils are the highest authority for EOs (including the Georgian Church) and exclude 4 Maccabees, then it would be confusing how the Georgian Church could canonically impose 4 Maccabees as an officially canonical Biblical book. I guess that sometimes EOs could make decisions conflicting with the Ecumenical Councils, but typically these decisions seem more context-specific and deal with practical issues, rather than something that seems as doctrinal as Biblical books. One that comes to mind is the issue of rebaptising converts, which is often thought to be demanded by a Council confirming the Apostolic Canons, but in reality my interpretation of the Council is that the Council in question does not actually impose those Canons' position on the topic.

Then there is also the fact that Georgian Church Bibles are marking 3/4 Esdras, 4 Maccabees, and the Deuterocanon with an asterisk as "noncanonical." I am aware that this printed Bible designation footnote does not really "prove" per se whether 4 Maccabees are in the canon, as opposed to it just being a murky issue like the Deuterocanon's status is in the Russian Church. But it seems that if there was an affirmative Georgian Church decision or history positively and authoritatively identifying 4 Maccabees as "canon", then it seems more likely that those "noncanonical" asterisk marks wouldn't be in Georgian Bibles. And absent any authoritative decision or Tradition in the Georgian Church, then it's status would be the same as in the Russian Church, in which it's completely and clearly not canonical.
Not sure, maybe that is something one should ask the bishops in Georgia
 
Upvote 0

rakovsky

Newbie
Apr 8, 2004
2,552
557
Pennsylvania
✟67,675.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
I asked a Georgian priest in the OCA and he checked his two Georgian Orthodox Bibles. One was made in 1994 and marks 4 Maccabees and the Deuterocanon (eg. Wisdom of Solomon) as "noncanonical," and the other was made much more recently by a Georgian theologian and a group of Georgian students, and it doesn't even have the Maccabees. The Georgian Church, by the way, was under the Russian Church from about the 19th century to the middle of the 20th century.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: anna ~ grace
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

All4Christ

✙ The Handmaid of God Laura ✙
CF Senior Ambassador
Supporter
Mar 11, 2003
11,682
8,018
PA
Visit site
✟1,013,527.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I’ve also seen mention of the “Old Georgian Bible” including Maccabees.
Since the Ecumenical Councils are the highest authority for EOs (including the Georgian Church) and exclude 4 Maccabees, then it would be confusing how the Georgian Church could canonically impose 4 Maccabees as an officially canonical Biblical book. I guess that sometimes EOs could make decisions conflicting with the Ecumenical Councils, but typically these decisions seem more context-specific and deal with practical issues, rather than something that seems as doctrinal as Biblical books. One that comes to mind is the issue of rebaptising converts, which is often thought to be demanded by a Council confirming the Apostolic Canons, but in reality my interpretation of the Council is that the Council in question does not actually impose those Canons' position on the topic.

Then there is also the fact that Georgian Church Bibles are marking 3/4 Esdras, 4 Maccabees, and the Deuterocanon with an asterisk as "noncanonical." I am aware that this printed Bible designation footnote does not really "prove" per se whether 4 Maccabees are in the canon, as opposed to it just being a murky issue like the Deuterocanon's status is in the Russian Church. But it seems that if there was an affirmative Georgian Church decision or history positively and authoritatively identifying 4 Maccabees as "canon", then it seems more likely that those "noncanonical" asterisk marks wouldn't be in Georgian Bibles. And absent any authoritative decision or Tradition in the Georgian Church, then it's status would be the same as in the Russian Church, in which it's completely and clearly not canonical.
Which Ecumenical council determined the Old Testament canon? If I remember correctly, the Jerusalem council in 1672 (approximate year) discussed the Old Testament canon, but that was a regional council.

The New Testament canon of course was decided early on in ecumenical councils.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rakovsky
Upvote 0

rakovsky

Newbie
Apr 8, 2004
2,552
557
Pennsylvania
✟67,675.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Were they Orthodox Bibles? Or modern day translations from the broader Christian community?
There must have been both Orthodox Bibles.
First, the Georgian priest looked at a 1994 Bible and saw 4 Macc. and also the whole Deuterocanon marked with asterisks as noncanonical. The Russian Synodal text from the mid-20th century also marked all their Deuterocanon as "noncanonical" with asterisks, and the common unofficial parlance (IMO unreliable) in the Russian Tradition is to call the Deuterocanon "noncanonical".

Second, the Georgian priest went on for a bit about how this other, quite recent Bible translation was laid out by a theologian close to the top hierarchy or administration of the Georgian Orthodox Church, and IIRC that he saw a Georgian TV episode about the compiling of this text, and that it had theology students working on it. Then he remarked that he was surprised that when he checked, this text did not have the Maccabees.

Third, a Georgian Orthodox website has a copy of the Bible in Georgian and it includes 4 Maccabees, but it marks 4 Macc. and the books of the Deuterocanon with an asterisk and a footnote saying that they are noncanonical:
† orthodoxy.ge † ძველი აღთქმა
 
  • Informative
Reactions: anna ~ grace
Upvote 0

All4Christ

✙ The Handmaid of God Laura ✙
CF Senior Ambassador
Supporter
Mar 11, 2003
11,682
8,018
PA
Visit site
✟1,013,527.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
There must have been both Orthodox Bibles.
First, the Georgian priest looked at a 1994 Bible and saw 4 Macc. and also the whole Deuterocanon marked with asterisks as noncanonical. The Russian Synodal text from the mid-20th century also marked all their Deuterocanon as "noncanonical" with asterisks, and the common unofficial parlance (IMO unreliable) in the Russian Tradition is to call the Deuterocanon "noncanonical".

Second, the Georgian priest went on for a bit about how this other, quite recent Bible translation was laid out by a theologian close to the top hierarchy or administration of the Georgian Orthodox Church, and IIRC that he saw a Georgian TV episode about the compiling of this text, and that it had theology students working on it. Then he remarked that he was surprised that when he checked, this text did not have the Maccabees.

Third, a Georgian Orthodox website has a copy of the Bible in Georgian and it includes 4 Maccabees, but it marks 4 Macc. and the books of the Deuterocanon with an asterisk and a footnote saying that they are noncanonical:
† orthodoxy.ge † ძველი აღთქმა
Interesting. Perhaps it was the influence of being part of the Russian church in the 19th century? I have read that the version in the 1700s included it as canonical, but as I cannot read Georgian and do not have access to texts from that time, I cannot verify it. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: rakovsky
Upvote 0

All4Christ

✙ The Handmaid of God Laura ✙
CF Senior Ambassador
Supporter
Mar 11, 2003
11,682
8,018
PA
Visit site
✟1,013,527.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
There must have been both Orthodox Bibles.
First, the Georgian priest looked at a 1994 Bible and saw 4 Macc. and also the whole Deuterocanon marked with asterisks as noncanonical. The Russian Synodal text from the mid-20th century also marked all their Deuterocanon as "noncanonical" with asterisks, and the common unofficial parlance (IMO unreliable) in the Russian Tradition is to call the Deuterocanon "noncanonical".

Second, the Georgian priest went on for a bit about how this other, quite recent Bible translation was laid out by a theologian close to the top hierarchy or administration of the Georgian Orthodox Church, and IIRC that he saw a Georgian TV episode about the compiling of this text, and that it had theology students working on it. Then he remarked that he was surprised that when he checked, this text did not have the Maccabees.

Third, a Georgian Orthodox website has a copy of the Bible in Georgian and it includes 4 Maccabees, but it marks 4 Macc. and the books of the Deuterocanon with an asterisk and a footnote saying that they are noncanonical:
† orthodoxy.ge † ძველი აღთქმა
The “non-canonical” part is the strange piece. Marking all the deuterocanonical books as non-canonical seems unusual within Orthodoxy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rakovsky
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

rakovsky

Newbie
Apr 8, 2004
2,552
557
Pennsylvania
✟67,675.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
I’ve also seen mention of the “Old Georgian Bible” including Maccabees.

Which Ecumenical council determined the Old Testament canon?
The Greek Bible for a long time also included the text of 4 Maccabees in the text of its printed hardcopy Bibles. Yet the Greek Church had no decision officially making 4 Maccabees in the canon. It was just including the 4 Macc. book inside of its physical printed copies of the Bible together with the actual canonical books because these books including 4 Macc. were in the Alexandrian Codex that the Greek Church was using as its template for hardcopy printing. Then more recently (like 50 years ago or 30 years ago), the Greek Church moved 4 Macc. into an Appendix, like what the KJV does to all books that the KJV considers "Apocryphal" and purely noncanonical.

So in conclusion, the mere inclusion of books like 4 Macc. into physical Bible copies like the Old Georgian Bible does not prove the status of the canon in the Church. Physical inclusion into physical Bibles =/= inclusion into "canon." I can give lots of other examples to show this, like old Bibles including Josephus or Shepherd of Hermas.

As to your other question, the Ecumenical Council on the question is the Quinsext Ecumenical Council (held in Trullo), specifically Canon 2. It lists councils that took an answer to this topic and Trullo approves those councils' answers. None of those approved councils or theologians mentioned in Trullo Canon 2 approved 2 Macc.

Apostolic Canon 85 approves 1-3 MAccabbees.
 
Upvote 0