Church history on the Catholic Bible vs Protestant Bible?

[acehighinfinity2015]

Hey Godly brethrens,

I had an interesting chat with a friend who is a Christian orthodox. As we were sharing our faith, I noticed something slightly different especially the Old testamnet. Sorry long story short...I realized the orthodox read the catholic bible. So I did some checking up and found there were different books in the Catholic bible but almost identical to the Holy bible. I also learned that the Holy bible is called protestant bible, etc, including Martin Luther and the reformation. Wow mind blogging.

I am curious to know if why they removed those books from the OT and is it vital? I was thinking about God's can not be added and subtracted:

Revelation 22:18: "I testify to everyone who hears the words of prophecy in this book: If anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if anyone takes away from the words of this book of prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.…"

Let's fellowship.
Questions:
- is the above scripture talking about the manuscripts or the original bible?
- Is the original manuscript was translated to the catholic bible or protestant first? I also heard about King James playing a major role.

Just letting you know I am no catholic either so no offense to the almighty pope

 

[thecolorsblend]

01- I've always assumed Revelation 22:18 refers to adding to/subtracting from Revelation. St. John might have known he was writing Sacred Scripture but he wouldn't necessarily have known his writings would eventually be gathered into a single volume. Mind you, best practice is to change nothing one way or the other with Sacred Scripture... which Martin Luther would've done well to remember.

02- The original manuscripts of each book are probably lost to history. What we have to create translations today are copies. There is considerable similarity between texts spread all over the world all through history so one needn't worry about items being missing for the most part.

In very brief, St. Athanasius recognized today's modern configuration of the New Testament back in the 4th century, which is why he's considered the Father of the Canon by many of us. The Council of Carthage in AD 419 recognized the deuterocanonical books (which you Protestants call "apocrypha") and which were accepted as canonical... until one day Martin Luther said "thanks but no thanks" (because those books don't line up too well with his views) and cut them out of his Bible. Most Protestants have done the same ever since.

In short, your Bible is an abbreviated version of what traditional Christians have used for centuries.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Hey Godly brethrens,

I had an interesting chat with a friend who is a Christian orthodox. As we were sharing our faith, I noticed something slightly different especially the Old testamnet. Sorry long story short...I realized the orthodox read the catholic bible. So I did some checking up and found there were different books in the Catholic bible but almost identical to the Holy bible. I also learned that the Holy bible is called protestant bible, etc, including Martin Luther and the reformation. Wow mind blogging.

I am curious to know if why they removed those books from the OT and is it vital? I was thinking about God's can not be added and subtracted:

Revelation 22:18: "I testify to everyone who hears the words of prophecy in this book: If anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if anyone takes away from the words of this book of prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.…"

Let's fellowship.
Questions:
- is the above scripture talking about the manuscripts or the original bible?
- Is the original manuscript was translated to the catholic bible or protestant first? I also heard about King James playing a major role.

Just letting you know I am no catholic either so no offense to the almighty pope

Hello.

I'm Orthodox too, and ... we are not under the Pope of Rome, btw.

There are actually a few different versions of the Canon of Scripture. I'd have to look it up - I THINK the Catholics use the same canon as the Orthodox but might divide the books up a little differently?

That quote about not adding or taking away could refer only to the book of Revelation ... there was no bound Bible when it was first written. (As a matter of fact, Revelation was the last book accepted into the canon, much later than the rest.)

The reason the Orthodox Bible has more books is that we based it off the Septuagint, which were the Greek Old Testament Scriptures in use at the time of Christ.

The books that were eventually removed do not appear in a Jewish compilation of the Old Testament that came about quite a few centuries after Christ. But I think it's worth mentioning, those Jews at that time were not exactly well-disposed to Christianity.

Martin Luther did not initially remove those books, but he moved them to a separate section and declared them of lesser importance. Later printings did remove them, though. However, he also wished to remove James, Jude, Hebrews, and Revelation from the New Testament. Thankfully he was talked out of that, or else many/all Protestant Bibles could lack these books as well.

As far as which came first ...

The Greek texts were first - the Septuagint and then the writings of the New Testament added to it. Later the Bible was translated into Latin (which I see as a loss - it is a much less-rich language, so many details were lost). And still later the Protestant Bibles in German, English, and so on were translated. Those that came from the Latin lost things in translation twice, in fact. King James had an English translation made which was then the official Bible for the Church of England.

Overall, the KJV IS a good translation, or rather the NKJV if one doesn't understand all the archaic language. It's always a good idea to compare translations, though. I rely most heavily on the NKJV and the NASB, and am working on learning the Greek. But even though I attend a Greek Church, I will always rely too on English translations, I suspect. I catch many nuances missed in only English reading, but since English is my main language, it just makes sense to read it in English as well.

 

[acehighinfinity2015]

01- I've always assumed Revelation 22:18 refers to adding to/subtracting from Revelation. St. John might have known he was writing Sacred Scripture but he wouldn't necessarily have known his writings would eventually be gathered into a single volume. Mind you, best practice is to change nothing one way or the other with Sacred Scripture... which Martin Luther would've done well to remember.

02- The original manuscripts of each book are probably lost to history. What we have to create translations today are copies. There is considerable similarity between texts spread all over the world all through history so one needn't worry about items being missing for the most part.

In very brief, St. Athanasius recognized today's modern configuration of the New Testament back in the 4th century, which is why he's considered the Father of the Canon by many of us. The Council of Carthage in AD 419 recognized the deuterocanonical books (which you Protestants call "apocrypha") and which were accepted as canonical... until one day Martin Luther said "thanks but no thanks" (because those books don't line up too well with his views) and cut them out of his Bible. Most Protestants have done the same ever since.

In short, your Bible is an abbreviated version of what traditional Christians have used for centuries.

Awesome! Thanks for the quick response.

OK, I noticed you called St. John does that mean you're a practicing catholic or orthodox or is there anyone other denominations calling it St. John? I am use to calling him apostle John or in the book of John from the Holy bible.

Interesting, if my Holy bible is an abbreviated version....so what is traditional Christians or who are they? When I read up on Church history it leads back to Roman Catholicism, and then somewhere is the dark ages before Martin Luther?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

The OT was initially derived from the Septuagint (LXX), a translation of the Hebrew and Aramaic texts into Greek carried out in Ptolemaic Egypt. These were the chief books in use by educated Jews of the time.

Rabbanical Judaism came to discard the books wholely written in Aramaic and keep the Hebrew or partial Hebrew ones. This became the Jewish canon. The Christians continued to use all the books in the Greek translation of the LXX.
Some disagreed though, like Jerome who translated the same books of the Jewish canon into his Latin vulgate. Later other old Latin translations of the other books (some by Jerome himself before he decided to prioritise the same books as the Rabbis or at request of bishops) were added as people were used to them and expected them in the liturgy.

The Protestants came to agree with Jerome and the Rabbis and chose to relegate the additional books to a separate category of apocrypha and not consider them Scripture as such. They weren't initially excluded as such, just relegated to secondary importance which over time led them to be mostly discarded.

 

[acehighinfinity2015]

Hello.

I'm Orthodox too, and ... we are not under the Pope of Rome, btw.

That quote about not adding or taking away could refer only to the book of Revelation ... there was no bound Bible when it was first written. (As a matter of fact, Revelation was the last book accepted into the canon, much later than the rest.)

The reason the Orthodox Bible has more books is that we based it off the Septuagint, which were the Greek Old Testament Scriptures in use at the time of Christ.

The books that were eventually removed do not appear in a Jewish compilation of the Old Testament that came about quite a few centuries after Christ. But I think it's worth mentioning, those Jews at that time were not exactly well-disposed to Christianity.

Martin Luther did not initially remove those books, but he moved them to a separate section and declared them of lesser importance. Later printings did remove them, though. However, he also wished to remove James, Jude, Hebrews, and Revelation from the New Testament. Thankfully he was talked out of that, or else many/all Protestant Bibles could lack these books as well.

As far as which came first ...

The Greek texts were first - the Septuagint and then the writings of the New Testament added to it. Later the Bible was translated into Latin (which I see as a loss - it is a much less-rich language, so many details were lost). And still later the Protestant Bibles in German, English, and so on were translated. Those that came from the Latin lost things in translation twice, in fact. King James had an English translation made which was then the official Bible for the Church of England.

Overall, the KJV IS a good translation, or rather the NKJV if one doesn't understand all the archaic language. It's always a good idea to compare translations, though. I rely most heavily on the NKJV and the NASB, and am working on learning the Greek. But even though I attend a Greek Church, I will always rely too on English translations, I suspect. I catch many nuances missed in only English reading, but since English is my main language, it just makes sense to read it in English as well.

Hello.

I'm Orthodox too, and ... we are not under the Pope of Rome, btw.

There are actually a few different versions of the Canon of Scripture. I'd have to look it up - I THINK the Catholics use the same canon as the Orthodox but might divide the books up a little differently?

That quote about not adding or taking away could refer only to the book of Revelation ... there was no bound Bible when it was first written. (As a matter of fact, Revelation was the last book accepted into the canon, much later than the rest.)

The reason the Orthodox Bible has more books is that we based it off the Septuagint, which were the Greek Old Testament Scriptures in use at the time of Christ.

The books that were eventually removed do not appear in a Jewish compilation of the Old Testament that came about quite a few centuries after Christ. But I think it's worth mentioning, those Jews at that time were not exactly well-disposed to Christianity.

Martin Luther did not initially remove those books, but he moved them to a separate section and declared them of lesser importance. Later printings did remove them, though. However, he also wished to remove James, Jude, Hebrews, and Revelation from the New Testament. Thankfully he was talked out of that, or else many/all Protestant Bibles could lack these books as well.

As far as which came first ...

The Greek texts were first - the Septuagint and then the writings of the New Testament added to it. Later the Bible was translated into Latin (which I see as a loss - it is a much less-rich language, so many details were lost). And still later the Protestant Bibles in German, English, and so on were translated. Those that came from the Latin lost things in translation twice, in fact. King James had an English translation made which was then the official Bible for the Church of England.

Overall, the KJV IS a good translation, or rather the NKJV if one doesn't understand all the archaic language. It's always a good idea to compare translations, though. I rely most heavily on the NKJV and the NASB, and am working on learning the Greek. But even though I attend a Greek Church, I will always rely too on English translations, I suspect. I catch many nuances missed in only English reading, but since English is my main language, it just makes sense to read it in English as well.

Very insightful, thank you Ana.

Yeah my friend did say the Orthodox broke away from the Catholic church. I was thinking about the book of Revelation and makes sense what you said since it is a vital book with the end days, judgement day, etc. That is interesting when you bring up Martin Luther. Lucky because the book of James is one of my favorites. I think Martin got carried and GOD said 'hold your horses boy' lol.

Nothing is a coincident and it looked like GOD already knew those books were going to be removed.

I think I'm basic who mainly reads NIV. I did read a bit on KJV only for a comparison.

Apart from that am I missing something? Should it not matter whether Orthodox/Catholic bible or Holy bible?

 

[~Anastasia~]

Interesting, if my Holy bible is an abbreviated version....so what is traditional Christians or are they? When I read up on Church history it leads back to Roman Catholicism, and then somewhere is the dark ages before Martin Luther?

Originally, there was only the Church. We read in Scripture about the Church at Antioch, the Church at Thesolaniki, the Church at Rome, etc.

There were overseers over the Church of an area, five of them at one time. Long story short, there were tensions because the Bishop of Rome wanted/expected to have authority over all the others, and the others did not see history that way. So after a few centuries of tensions, they broke communion officially in 1054, and that was when the Catholic Church became an entity separate from the other four, which we now call the Orthodox Church.

Martin Luther along with other Reformers near the same time likewise broke away from the Catholics, which was the beginning of Protestantism as it is generally known today.

That's a simplified history, but covers how Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant came to be.

 

[acehighinfinity2015]

The OT was initially derived from the Septuagint (LXX), a translation of the Hebrew and Aramaic texts into Greek carried out in Ptolemaic Egypt. These were the chief books in use by educated Jews of the time.

Rabbanical Judaism came to discard the books wholely written in Aramaic and keep the Hebrew or partial Hebrew ones. This became the Jewish canon. The Christians continued to use all the books in the Greek translation of the LXX.
Some disagreed though, like Jerome who translated the same books of the Jewish canon into his Latin vulgate. Later other old Latin translations of the other books (some by Jerome himself before he decided to prioritise the same books as the Rabbis or at request of bishops) were added as people were used to them and expected them in the liturgy.

The Protestants came to agree with Jerome and the Rabbis and chose to relegate the additional books to a separate category of apocrypha and not consider them Scripture as such. They weren't initially excluded as such, just relegated to secondary importance which over time led them to be mostly discarded.

Thanks Quid, I stumbled over your screen profile and noticed 'Faith: Protestants' and my one 'Faith: Christian'...interesting.

Protestant Bible - Wikipedia

Have I understood this correctly, the protestant bible is the Holy bible such as NIV, etc? If one reads a protestant bible does that mean he still go by Christian or Protestant? Sort of confusing.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Awesome! Thanks for the quick response.

OK, I noticed you called St. John does that mean you're a practicing catholic or orthodox or is there anyone other denominations calling it St. John? I am use to calling him apostle John or in the book of John from the Holy bible.

Interesting, if my Holy bible is an abbreviated version....so what is traditional Christians or are they? When I read up on Church history it leads back to Roman Catholicism, and then somewhere is the dark ages before Martin Luther?

I am also Protestant. This is where people will start fighting, since Protestants don't consider the Bible abbreviated as such. The Protestant OT canon agrees with the Jewish one and we see the Church Fathers debating what books should or should not be considered Scripture.

It is true Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy agree on their canon (although they differ on the interpretation), but this was only determined at quite a late date. The list was compiled at the Synod of Hippo 393 AD and the subsequent councils of Carthage 397, 419 AD. The earliest such complete list however was Pope Damasus in 382 AD from whence Roman Catholicism only fully affirmed their modern Canon at Trent in 1546 at which point it became binding for Catholics.
Orthodoxy only fully confirmed their canon at the Synod of Jerusalem in 1672.

So to say that the Protestant canon excluded books from the 'Christian' canon is specious, as all three traditions of Protestantism, Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy only affirmed their canons in the last 500 years. In the first millenium and mediaeval times the books in use mostly agreed with the modern Catholic canon, but debate on which were more or less important or should be considered scripture continued throughout. It is from this tradition of debate that Martin Luther and the Protestants derived their more severe culling of the books to the essential ones, to which the Catholics responded in the counter-Reformation to fully affirm them all.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Very insightful, thank you Ana.

Yeah my friend did say the Orthodox broke away from the Catholic church. I was thinking about the book of Revelation and makes sense what you said since it is a vital book with the end days, judgement day, etc. That is interesting when you bring up Martin Luther. Lucky because the book of James is one of my favorites. I think Martin got carried and GOD said 'hold your horses boy' lol.

Nothing is a coincident and it looked like GOD already knew those books were going to be removed.

I think I'm basic who mainly reads NIV. I did read a bit on KJV only for a comparison.

Apart from that am I missing something? Should it not matter whether Orthodox/Catholic bible or Holy bible?

Depends on what you mean by "missing".

I don't mean to sound blasphemous, but I could fail to read Esther, or perhaps Song of Solomon, and I would still have the Gospels, the Psalms, the Epistles, and so on. How much would I be "missing"?

It's kind of like that. I really like the Wisdom books, for example.

There is also perhaps the possibility that, without understanding the Church's point of view, wrong conclusions could be drawn in some of them.

If you are asking me, there is much more that was removed from the practice of the early Church that Protestants miss (to varying degrees, depending upon what kind of Protestant) that is even more of a loss. The tools the Church offers to discipline our thoughts, for example, and focus on Christ. Spiritual guidance. Reminders that continually draw us into the life of Christ. So much more ...

But as for your Bible ... we tend to emphasize the Gospels, especially, and view all of Scripture through them. We read the Epistles regularly. We pray the Psalms. You have the blessing of having all of that. I'm not saying forget the rest, and it could be good to look into what is missing. But I am saying that you do have a good Bible, what is included is valuable beyond measure.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Thanks Quid, I stumbled over your screen profile and noticed 'Faith: Protestants' and my one 'Faith: Christian'...interesting.

Protestant Bible - Wikipedia

Have I understood this correctly, the protestant bible is the Holy bible such as NIV, etc? If one reads a protestant bible does that mean he still go by Christian or Protestant? Sort of confusing.

Protestants are a tradition of Christianity and use the Christian Bible, even if it is a bit shorter then the Catholic or Orthodox variants which are also Christian Bibles. It is treading onto dangerous sectarian grounds to start deciding one is or is not the 'Christian Bible'. As I wrote in my previous post, this is debatable and a fairly recent approximation for all. We all agree on the vast majority and the most important books, I think.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I am also Protestant. This is where people will start fighting, since Protestants don't consider the Bible abbreviated as such. The Protestant OT canon agrees with the Jewish one and we see the Church Fathers debating what books should or should not be considered Scripture.

It is true Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy agree on their canon (although they differ on the interpretation), but this was only determined at quite a late date. The list was compiled at the Synod of Hippo 393 AD and the subsequent councils of Carthage 397, 419 AD. The earliest such complete list however was Pope Damasus in 382 AD from whence Roman Catholicism only fully affirmed their modern Canon at Trent in 1546 at which point it became binding for Catholics.
Orthodoxy only fully confirmed their canon at the Synod of Jeusalem in 1672.

So to say that the Protestant canon excluded books from the 'Christian' canon is specious, as all three traditions of Protestantism, Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy only affirmed their canons in the last 500 years. In the first millenium and mediaeval times the books in use mostly agreed with the modern Catholic canon, but debate on which were more or less important or should be considered scripture continued throughout. It is from this tradition of debate that Martin Luther and the Protestants derived their more severe culling of the books to the essential ones, to which the Catholics responded in the counter-Reformation to fully affirm them all.

Ah, I find this perhaps a bit misleading, though I'm not saying that was your intent.

The New Testament canon was ratified at the Councils in the first few centuries, but the writings were chosen based on what the ekklesia recognized as authentic.

It wasn't so much that we need to worry about including Tobit or Macabees - the Church was concerning themselves with the Gospel according to Luke or the Gospel of Thomas, the Epistles by Peter or the Apocalypse of Peter.

There were spurious forgeries supposedly by the Apostles ... and THAT was what the Church sorted out, and she did it by recognizing the letters when they arrived and were read.

That was essentially established VERY early on, and the canon of the Orthodox Church was not a recent invention.

I'm sure you have reasons for believing as you do, but I wanted to be clear on this. We seem to be talking about apples and oranges here. The Church lexionary of readings has been in place for about 1-1/2 millennia and that was developed based on the canon.

 

[thecolorsblend]

OK, I noticed you called St. John does that mean you're a practicing catholic or orthodox or is there anyone other denominations calling it St. John?

Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans and probably even some Lutherans recognize the concept of saints. I think the Methodists might as well.

But I am Catholic. And happy to be Catholic.

Interesting, if my Holy bible is an abbreviated version....so what is traditional Christians or who are they? When I read up on Church history it leads back to Roman Catholicism, and then somewhere is the dark ages before Martin Luther?

"Traditional Christian" is a loose term which can apply to those Christian bodies such as the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Church, a lot of Anglicans, some Lutherans, etc, who place some level of value and importance on Sacred Tradition... which is really the only mechanism by which Christians can recognize what is scripture and what is not. So this idea of a "Bible-only" Christianity is sort of a logical dead end, as it looks like you're starting to discover.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Ah, I find this perhaps a bit misleading, though I'm not saying that was your intent.

The New Testament canon was ratified at the Councils in the first few centuries, but the writings were chosen based on what the ekklesia recognized as authentic.

It wasn't so much that we need to worry about including Tobit or Macabees - the Church was concerning themselves with the Gospel according to Luke or the Gospel of Thomas, the Epistles by Peter or the Apocalypse of Peter.

There were spurious forgeries supposedly by the Apostles ... and THAT was what the Church sorted out, and she did it by recognizing the letters when they arrived and were read.

That was essentially established VERY early on, and the canon of the Orthodox Church was not a recent invention.

I'm sure you have reasons for believing as you do, but I wanted to be clear on this. We seem to be talking about apples and oranges here. The Church lexionary of readings has been in place for about 1-1/2 millennia and that was developed based on the canon.

The Eastern Orthodox Churches however only affirmed the official Canon in 1672. Before this one could doubt or disagree that certain books in use were really scriptural or not. It is true though that the modern orthodox canon has been in use since earliest times as I wrote previously, de facto but not yet de jure. (The occasion was actually to refute a creeping Calvinism, since some argued Orthodoxy was compatible with it)

I am just opposing the misconception that the Protestants started throwing out books left and right when they were just working from an ancient and venerable debate on canonicity and tended to the extremist option of exclusion as far as possible.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Ah, I find this perhaps a bit misleading, though I'm not saying that was your intent.

The New Testament canon was ratified at the Councils in the first few centuries, but the writings were chosen based on what the ekklesia recognized as authentic.

It wasn't so much that we need to worry about including Tobit or Macabees - the Church was concerning themselves with the Gospel according to Luke or the Gospel of Thomas, the Epistles by Peter or the Apocalypse of Peter.

There were spurious forgeries supposedly by the Apostles ... and THAT was what the Church sorted out, and she did it by recognizing the letters when they arrived and were read.

That was essentially established VERY early on, and the canon of the Orthodox Church was not a recent invention.

Indeed, yes. And ditto. From the Catholic side, what the Catholic Church did in the Council of Trent was, among other things, reaffirm the texts they recognized as canonical... which, considering the controversy going on with Luther pulling doctrines out of his... hat, was a relevant subject for the Council to discuss at that time. But this silly notion that the canon was only decided upon at the Council of Trent is simply not true.

 

[~Anastasia~]

The Eastern Orthodox Churches however only affirmed the official Canon in 1672. Before this one could doubt or disagree that certain books in use were really scriptural or not. It is true though that the modern orthodox canon has been in use since earliest times as I wrote previously, de facto but not yet de jure. (The occasion was actually to refute a creeping Calvinism, since some argued Orthodoxy was compatible with it)

I am just opposing the misconception that the Protestants started throwing out books left and right when they were just working from an ancient and venerable debate on canonicity and tended to the extremist option of exclusion as far as possible.

Well ... I wouldn't say Protestants threw out books left and right. But I do think Luther was a bit ... overzealous in that regard.

How can I blame any other Protestant though? Generally, they inherited their Holy Bible with or without "Apocrypha" and nearly all consider the Scriptures in highest regard.

But I just don't think it is necessary to make it seem as though Orthodox were unsure of what was Scripture and what wasn't in order to make that point. Forgive me please if that seems a little harsh, I don't mean it to be. I hope I can be excused for not wishing what we consider Truth to be misunderstood.

But I don't know of Orthodox running around willy-nilly, unsure of what is Scripture and what isn't, and arguing over it, until nearly the 18th century. That does not accurately portray our history at all.

Again, I hope I haven't offended.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Indeed, yes. And ditto. From the Catholic side, what the Catholic Church did in the Council of Trent was, among other things, reaffirm the texts they recognized as canonical... which, considering the controversy going on with Luther pulling doctrines out of his... hat, was a relevant subject for the Council to discuss at that time. But this silly notion that the canon was only decided upon at the Council of Trent is simply not true.

Again de facto not de jure. People like Thomas Aquinas, Bede, Peter Abelard and less 'catholic' ones like John Wycliffe and Hus debated canonicity throughout the mediaeval period.Church Fathers like Irenaeus, Jerome and Augustine did the same. It only became an article of faith at Trent. To say otherwise is simply not true.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Well ... I wouldn't say Protestants threw out books left and right. But I do think Luther was a bit ... overzealous in that regard.

How can I blame any other Protestant though? Generally, they inherited their Holy Bible with or without "Apocrypha" and nearly all consider the Scriptures in highest regard.

But I just don't think it is necessary to make it seem as though Orthodox were unsure of what was Scripture and what wasn't in order to make that point. Forgive me please if that seems a little harsh, I don't mean it to be. I hope I can be excused for not wishing what we consider Truth to be misunderstood.

But I don't know of Orthodox running around willy-nilly, unsure of what is Scripture and what isn't, and arguing over it, until nearly the 18th century. That does not accurately portray our history at all.

Again, I hope I haven't offended.

No offence taken. Most were sure of what was scripture, but not all agreed. The council of Jerusalem was called to combat some who would have imported Calvinism into Orthodoxy based on doubt of the books of Maccabees, so to say they were completely agreed by all is not the case either. There were also weird books like pseudo-Methodius that isolated groups treated almost as scripture if not wholly so.

Overall though, I agree 95% of Orthodoxy agreed with the canon since earliest times - if I would guess a number.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I would just point out that there are differences between the Orthodox and Catholic Canon as well. Catholics derive their OT wording from the Hebrew version mostly via Jerome, while Orthodoxy derives it from the Septuagint. There are variations and differences in wording in some verses in the OT as a consequence.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I would just point out that there are differences between the Orthodox and Catholic Canon as well. Catholics derive their OT wording from the Hebrew version mostly via Jerome, while Orthodoxy derives it from the Septuagint. There are variations and differences in wording in some verses in the OT as a consequence.

Yes, I do think there are very minor differences, such as the numberings and the like. I'm usually one of the ones pointing out that Rome has her differences with the Orthodox.

No offence taken. Most were sure of what was scripture, but not all agreed. The council of Jerusalem was called to combat some who would have imported Calvinism into Orthodoxy based on doubt of the books of Maccabees, so to say they were completely agreed by all is not the case either. There were also weird books like pseudo-Methodius that isolated groups treated almost as scripture if not wholly so.

Overall though, I agree 95% of Orthodoxy agreed with the canon since earliest times - if I would guess a number.

95% eh?

It's probably best not to continue this line of discussion. But I'd be quite shocked to find 5% of a given Orthodox population disagreeing on Scripture.

I am glad we've not offended one another though.