Oriental Orthodox Bible?

[Vedant]

I've read that the Ethiopian Orthodox Bible has more books than in Eastern Orthodoxy. Is there any consensus amongst the Oriental Orthodox of which Bible to use? How many books are in an Oriental Orthodox Bible typically? Where can I get/read an Oriental Orthodox Bible? Thanks!

[minasoliman]

Well, there is really no such thing as an "Oriental Orthodox Bible." Like you said, Ethiopians have a different canon. The Syrians and Indians use the Peshitta Bible, a Bible from Aramaic sources. I don't know what Bible or canon the Armenians use, but the Copts do use more or less what the Greek canon uses.

Many Coptic bishops are actually looking forward for the completion of the OSB OT, an EO Bible.

God bless.

Mina

[Vedant]

Is there a reason why different churches use different Bibles or canons? I thought the Bible canon was more standardized...

[minasoliman]

I'm not sure...i never really gave the Bible canon much thought.

One thing is that even between Romans and Byzantines, canons are slightly different, so you get a sense of feeling that every culture seems to come up with different studies and conclusions. You will also find different Holy Fathers also giving different canons, like the Book of Enoch for instance. Some fathers consider whatever it teaches fine, but others look at it as nonsense.

What we do agree on is a set standard of what books SHOULD be there, and this standard is the Septuagint/Peshitta. Anything additional is either apocryphal or something spiritually nice and edifying, like the Epistles of Clement or the Shephard of Hermas. St. Athanasius even puts the book of Esther in the "extra-Biblical" section, and not part of Bible canon.

God bless.

Mina

[ClementofRome]

Is there a reason why different churches use different Bibles or canons? I thought the Bible canon was more standardized...

Absolute "canonization" of Scriptures was never in the mind of the earliest Church. As decades/centuries past and many extraneous and heretical "gospels" and "epistles" surfaced, it became necessary for the Church Councils to address the matter. As it were, the OT contained the Jewish canon AND the Apocrypha. Even some of our earliest complete Bibles had a variety of "books" included.....1-2 Clement in the Codex Alexandrinus....

So, the issue of 66 is only a debate of the last 500 years.

[minasoliman]

I would rather differentiate between "apocryphal" and "deuterocanonical" books. The former are condemned, but the latter are canonical. I understand Protestants have associated these canonical books as "apocrypha" simply because they believe they're condemnable.

God bless.

Mina

[Vedant]

Absolute "canonization" of Scriptures was never in the mind of the earliest Church. As decades/centuries past and many extraneous and heretical "gospels" and "epistles" surfaced, it became necessary for the Church Councils to address the matter. As it were, the OT contained the Jewish canon AND the Apocrypha. Even some of our earliest complete Bibles had a variety of "books" included.....1-2 Clement in the Codex Alexandrinus....

So, the issue of 66 is only a debate of the last 500 years.

Well the issue I'm having is not a debate of the last 500 years. I understand that one fairly well, I think. I asked the same question in the Eastern Orthodox Forum.

While 66 is how many books Protestants generally have in their Bibles, 73 is how many Catholics have.

75 is how many the Eastern Orthodox church has.

The Ethiopian (Oriental) Orthodox can have up to 35 New Testament books and I think up to 52 Old Testament books.

I guess the difficulty I am trying to understand is that the Biblical canon was sealed around the late 4th century. Or maybe it wasn't? I'm trying to understand why Orthodoxy (both Oriental and Eastern) are different from each other as well as Catholics regarding this.

Perhaps it's because the Biblical canon actually wasn't as absolute as some might think it was or that each church decided its own canon? The latter seems the case to me regarding Oriental Orthodoxy.

[copticorthodoxy]

i think the Coptic Orthodox bible is the same as the Eastern Orthodox , the Ethiopean Orthodox church found by the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria and our pope was the head of this church till a very near time but they have extra books in their bible .. I don't know how !!!!

[Gottservant]

I want to find out more about Jesus. Is it truly possible to find more books of His words?

[copticorthodoxy]

I want to find out more about Jesus. Is it truly possible to find more books of His words?

Do you think that the four Gospels is not enough ?? as Orthodox we have the holy traditions which include the liturgy and the Church Fathers teachings all of this include more about Jesus

[Gottservant]

Do you think that the four Gospels is not enough ?? as Orthodox we have the holy traditions which include the liturgy and the Church Fathers teachings all of this include more about Jesus
Four gospels is absolutely enough. Christian testimonies are also a terrific source of inspiration. To read of the Church fathers would be wonderful, though. Are such texts available in the Australia (the West)?

[copticorthodoxy]

Four gospels is absolutely enough. Christian testimonies are also a terrific source of inspiration. To read of the Church fathers would be wonderful, though. Are such texts available in the Australia (the West)?

yes sure ,

also you can see this links

http://www.copticchurch.net/topics/theology/incarnation_st_athanasius.pdf

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/

[Gottservant]

Thank you brother. Hopefully with that I will be able to trace my inheritance to the current day much more easily!

[ArnautDaniel]

I guess the difficulty I am trying to understand is that the Biblical canon was sealed around the late 4th century. Or maybe it wasn't?

I am assuming that you are thinking of a "sealing" of the Biblical canon within the Roman Empire.

There is a tendency in the West to view the history of Christianity within the Roman Empire as the history of Christianity in its entirety. It may well be that by the times of the Ecumenical Councils more Christians lived outside of the Empire than within it. Anyway, the point of the Councils was to weld a separate Christian groups within the Empire into a unified imperial church.

Of course there were Christian groups abroad in Ethiopia and the Persian Empire that were not part of this process. Moreover what was constructed was a working political arrangement that local groups felt they could work around.

The point was to give a public face of unity, even if the unity was lacking in practice.