[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / ashleyj / fascist / flags / had / hydrus / imouto / komica / sg ]

/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Email
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? the Lord is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?

File: aab4a6e0de2b19b⋯.jpg (234.18 KB, 993x1500, 331:500, Orthodox Study Bible.jpg)

1d0f13 No.666065

THE ORTHODOX STUDY BIBLE DOESN'T CONTAIN 2 ESDRAS

The book it calls 2 Esdras is just the regular Book of Ezra that's in Protestant and Catholic Bibles. which is basically the same thing as 1 Esdras. In the introduction of the book they even quote 2 Esdras 12:20 which, since Ezra only has 10 chapters, isn't found in the book. And in the study note in the Book of Tobit where they talk about the Seven Archangels, they refer to 2 Esdras 4:1 when talking about Uriel, but that verse isn't there because 2 Esdras ISN'T THERE EITHER. When you click on it in the digital version it just takes you to Ezra 4:1. At first I thought it was because there was something wrong with the digital version that I pirated, but then I looked in my physical version of the book and it 2 Esdras wasn't there either. What's going on? Is this fixed in more recent editions of the book? I have a book that contains all of the Old Testament Apocrypha separately, but I would really like to read it with the great theological commentary that the Orthodox Study Bible provides. I'm upset.

While we're on the subject, what's the story with the Orthodox having more books in their Bibles than the Catholics like 2 Esdras and 3 Maccabees? Shouldn't they have the same amount since they're both based on the canon that was decided in the 4th century? Did the Catholics remove them later or did the Orthodox add them later?

841c03 No.666179

Wikipedia articles on Esdras state they were placed by Clement VIII in the appendix of the Vulgate after the New Testament with the rest of the Biblical apocrypha, "lest they perish entirely".

>It may also be found in many larger English Bibles included as part of the Biblical Apocrypha, as they exist in the King James version, the Revised Standard Version, and the earliest editions of the Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible, among others.

I read in the article for the RSV that a version with 84 books was made in 1977 for a Common Bible.

The table of contents in this scan of a printed copy of Brenton's Septuagint translation has the most extensive list I could find though but also doesn't seem to include 2 Esdras.

https://archive.org/details/septuagintversio1900bren


841c03 No.666180

>>666179

The KJV and the RV apocrypha do have 2 Esdras though but not 3 and 4 Maccabees.


dce276 No.666211

You can't put expansion packs on the Bible.

Matthew 11:13

For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.


841c03 No.666213


dce276 No.666216

>>666213

Mine doesn't. As early as 1629 there were KJV without apocrypha and where it does appear it is appropriately designated. So its not to be confused with this expansion pack mentality.


841c03 No.666222

>>666216

>expansion pack

>apocrypha section

What's the functional difference?


dce276 No.666223

>>666222

I don't treat maps or geneologies as expansions of the Bible just because they might appear in it.


841c03 No.666232

>>666223

So apocrypha in a Bible volume is okay (according certain doctrines) as long as it's not considered canonical.

Got it.


841c03 No.666234

Speaking tentatively, personal use of gilded books and copies with luxury paper and gold edges could also be considered impious at least as per the opinions of St. Jerome.

Even binding the books into a single volume rather than having them separate as the prophets, apostles, and evangelists would have had with separate scrolls and codices.

The early churches and evangelists probably only had a few books to rely on for converting whole tribes and kingdoms as well as for personal use and at the earliest periods on rustic papyrus codices with covers reinforced by recycled papyri.

Jewish scroll making rules also forbid the use of anything other than black ink and kosher parchment.


62c2e2 No.666246

File: fe04909ae8ac6eb⋯.jpg (11.71 KB, 300x200, 3:2, bible.jpg)

>>666065

>While we're on the subject, what's the story with the Orthodox having more books in their Bibles than the Catholics like 2 Esdras and 3 Maccabees?

Catholics have protocanonical and deuterocanonical books. As a convenience sometimes we also use this terminology but it is wrong. Because we don't have two canons about the Biblical books. We have only one.

There is one thing which seems to be little known these days. The Biblical canon of the Orthodox Church includes the same books as the Protestant Bibles. However, in the Orthodox Church "biblical canon" and "bible" are two very different things. Bible is a Greek word which means "books". Just that. So the old testament in Bible = good books we inherited from Jews.

Now, I suppose that what I am writing may come as a surprise to some, but many Orthodox saints (such as st. Athanasios, st. John of Damascus) list only the Jewish books as books that are inspired by God. For the rest st. Athanasios writes: "there are other books that are not in the canon but the Fathers intend them to be read by new Christians and by whoever wants to learn". As far as I know no Orthodox saint has ever claimed that the "deuterocanonical" books are inspired by God.

Now, the reason the word "deuterocanonical" is bad terminology, is that we simply don't have a canon about the deuterocanonical books. Different local Churches in different times have included different sets of books in their Bibles. For example in modern days the Bibles in the Slavonic Churches include the apocalyptic Third book of Esdras while the Greek Bibles don't include this book (which isn't even preserved in Greek…).

Instead of "protocanonical" and "deuterocanonical", the terminology used by Slavonic Orthodox theologians is "canonical" and "non-canonical".

> Shouldn't they have the same amount since they're both based on the canon that was decided in the 4th century? Did the Catholics remove them later or did the Orthodox add them later?

Neither. No such canon has been decided in the 4th century. The Greek-language Christians had one tradition, the Latin Christians had another, the Slavonic Christians - third, the Syriac Christians had their own books (with 152 Psalms, BTW), etc. Only about the inspired by God books, that is the canonical/protocanonical books, we all agree.


17cb6c No.666304

>>666246

>he Biblical canon of the Orthodox Church includes the same books as the Protestant Bibles

So the Orthodox don't regard books like First and Second Maccabees or the Wisdom of Sirach as canonical or inspired either?


62c2e2 No.666394

>>666304

>So the Orthodox don't regard books like First and Second Maccabees or the Wisdom of Sirach as canonical or inspired either?

The word 'canonical' is somewhat ambiguous, but not inspired, yes.

St. Athanasios of Alexandria, the Great: "There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. […] But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being [merely] read; nor is there in any place a mention of apocryphal writings. But they are an invention of heretics, who write them when they choose, bestowing upon them their approbation, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as ancient writings, they may find occasion to lead astray the simple." (Letter 39)

St. John of Damascus: "Observe, further, that there are two and twenty books of the Old Testament, one for each letter of the Hebrew tongue. For there are twenty-two letters of which five are double, and so they come to be twenty-seven. For the letters Caph, Mere, Nun, Pe, Sade are double. And thus the number of the books in this way is twenty-two, but is found to be twenty-seven because of the double character of five. […] There are also the Panaretus, that is the Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Jesus, which was published in Hebrew by the father of Sirach, and afterwards translated into Greek by his grandson, Jesus, the Son of Sirach. These are virtuous and noble, but are not counted nor were they placed in the ark." (An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith)




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / ashleyj / fascist / flags / had / hydrus / imouto / komica / sg ]