Where'd the Orthodox Bible come from?

MattMMMan17 said:

Well. . .the title said it all pretty much. Basically I'd like to know how/when/why/by whom was it changed after Pope Damasus I listed the canonical scriptures in 382 A.D. I'm not after debate and this will be my only post in this thread. A short to the point answer would be appreciated, thanks.

Click to expand...

Hi Matt

I'm not familiar at all with what Pope Damasus wrote, but the Orthodox New Testament Canon -- same as yours, of course -- developed over the first few centuries of the Church. It was largely set by the Council of Laodicea in 364, although that excluded the Apocalypse of St. John. Five years later, in his Festal Epistle for that year, St. Athanasius produced the definitive NT canon.

As far as OT canon goes, aside from 1 Esdras, 3 Maccabees, Psalm 151 and the Prayer of Manasseh -- which I don't think are in the RC canon -- I think the most basic difference between us has to do with the source material. I think we both go to the Septuagint, but Rome follows St. Jerome's translation of that into latin, about which there is some dispute. As well, (and correct me if I'm wrong) I think later the masoretic text had a significant influence on the RC text, while the Orthodox have never had any dealings with the masoretic. Aside from the four books and passages listed above, the OT canon for our two churches is largely similar. From the Orthodox perspective, they simply include the OT canon as it existed at the time of Christ. That was very shortly changed by the Jews themselves, at about the end of the first century.

Aside from the challenge of Marcion -- who thought the God of the OT was an evil vindictive God, an attitude which is surprisingly common to this day -- and who would not recognize the OT at all, the OT canon as far as the Orthodox are concerned has been pretty stable from day one. If a book was in the Septuagint in 33 AD, then it stayed there.

If you have a link to the canon of Pope Damasus, I'd be interested.

Thanks,

James

P.S. -- That dog looks a little under the weather.

For one the Eastern Church has never issued a decree on the Old Testament Canon. The Old Testament in the Orthodox Church by Fr. R. Stergiou
Jeff the Finn

MattMMMan17 said:

Thanks for the link, Jeff. I guess I don't really understand that statement though because back in AD382, there was no Eastern Church. Well by that I mean the Church was one. Basically the official decree back then lists the same scriptures found in my Bible today. So if anyone can provide me with a link that cites how and when a different canon began to be used throughout the "Eastern Church"(quotes because we were still one), I'd appreciate it.

Click to expand...

I think the problem, Matt, arises out of the assumption that what the Pope decreed the canon as being is what controlled, i.e., the old papal supremacy argument we re-hash so many times. In truth, no one paid much attention to what the Pope said about it. Its not that we changed our canon, its that the Pope changed his canon.

Does that make sense?

James

MattMMMan17 said:

Ahhh okay that helps some, but being that the Canon wasn't decreed before Damasus, he would have had to set the canon, and then just not have it followed by the Churches that would later become the Eastern Orthodox. . .kinda like . .they didn't get the memo. . .yeah?

Click to expand...

Pretty much. Like Jeff said, the canon never really got set in the east in a formal sense -- it just was, so to speak, because that's how the Septuagint stood at the time of Christ. So it was a matter of custom and tradition, and if the eastern patriarchs got the memo, they ignored it, figuring, I expect, that the Pope was free to do as he wished in Rome.

Basically all of the synods were local, the statement of St Damasus had force only in the Diocese of Rome. No, because his voice had no authority outside of the Diocese of Rome.
Jeff the Finn

I agree with what Jeff said; Damasus' canon was only definitive for the churches under his direct control. Many of the Bishops issued lists describing which books were canonical and which were not and those lists were for their own dioceses. Simply put, the Pope's list was not binding upon the entire Church.

According to what pope damasus said esdras 2 books. in the septuagent which was in use in rome until the translation of st jerome contained 2 esdras books
1 esdras which is called ezra iii in the vualgate and 1 esdras by the protestants
2 esdras which are called ezra i and ezra ii in the vulgate and called ezra and nehemiah by the protestants i hear that they are still one book in the jewish canon but i dont know 4 sure
so it really depends on which version of ot u r having the septuagint or the vulgate remember pope damasus mentioned the name not the contents
the psalm 151 is in the book of the psalm in the septuagent what pope damasus said psalms 1 book he didnt mention how many psalms 150 or 151 psalms
the prayer of manessah the are a part of a book in the old testament but i cant remember which book
the only remaining problem is that the mecabees 2 books but i think it is not a big deal. the ancient fathers differed among themselves about the canon of the old testament and even the new testament

here is a link about the canon of the new testament and how some fathers rejected books what now a part of the new testament and i think pope damasus can be considered as one of them (from the orthodox point of view)
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cach...+First:+The+Church+or+the+New+Testament&hl=en
it is a google cach as the original link in the site gives me error

MattMMMan17 said:

Ahhh okay that helps some, but being that the Canon wasn't decreed before Damasus, he would have had to set the canon, and then just not have it followed by the Churches that would later become the Eastern Orthodox. . .kinda like . .they didn't get the memo. . .yeah?

Click to expand...

I think a key source of confusion in this discussion is that you have the misunderstanding that the one holy catholic and apostolic church and the Roman Catholic Church are the same. One patriarch alone could not declare, "This is the canon." That sounds more like pope-like behavior, which didn't come into play until much later. The Roman Church did not officially exist until 1054 A.D. when it broke communion with the other four patriarchs of Christendom. Throughout history there has been greater reliance on collegial decisions made together, both in councils and in simple universal agreement on belief. Your assertion that one person established the biblical canon is odd.