Books In The Orthodox Bible

The Orthodox Bible has many books not included in the Protestant Bible. The word “Apocrypha” comes from Greek, and it means “hidden.” Those who did not consider these books to be scripture gave them this name. In 1984, a permanent committee of Orthodox theologians, led by Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesensky) of New York and Canada, met at an Orthodox Church conference in Chambésy, Switzerland, fully persuaded that these books were valid parts of Holy Scripture as recognised by the Church for centuries.

The Orthodox Bible is divided into two parts: the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Old Testament contains all forty-six books of the original Hebrew collection, beginning with Genesis and ending with 2 Maccabees. The New Testament contains all 27 books that are canonical to Christianity, including the four gospels, Acts, fourteen epistles (letters) written by various authors during ancient times, and seven letters written by Paul of Tarsus.

List of all The Books In The Orthodox Bible

Old Testament

Genesis

Exodus

Leviticus

Numbers

Deuteronomy

Joshua

Judges

Ruth

1 Samuel

2 Samuel

1 Kings

2 Kings

1 Chronicles

2 Chronicles

Ezra

Nehemiah

Esther

Job

Psalms

Proverbs

Ecclesiastes

Song of Solomon

Isaiah

Jeremiah

Lamentations

Ezekiel

Daniel

Hosea

Joel

Amos

Obadiah

Jonah

Micah

Nahum

Habbakuk

Zephaniah

Haggai

Zechariah

Malachi

New Testament

Matthew

Mark

Luke

John

Acts

Romans

1 Corinthians

2 Corinthians

Galatians

Ephesians

Philippians

Colossians

1 Thessalonians

2 Thessalonians

1 Timothy

2 Timothy

Titus

Philemon

Hebrews

James

1 Peter

2 Peter

1 John

2 John

3 John

Jude

Revelation

What Are The Extra Books In The Orthodox Bible

Apocrypha means “the things hidden away.” Jews used to hide old copies of revered books rather than burn or destroy them. As a result, the term came to be synonymous with highly esteemed. Thus, the Apocrypha originated as highly esteemed books that weren’t Scripture. There were 12 (or 15, depending on how they are divided):

1st Esdras
2nd Esdras
Tobit
Judith
Additions of Esther
Wisdom
Ecclesiasticus (or Sirach)
Baruch
Epistle of Jeremiah
Additions of Daniel
Susanna
Bel and the Dragon
Song of Three Young Men
The Prayer of Manasseh
First and Second Maccabees

Between the OT and NT, in the Greek period, numerous religious texts written in Greek were produced. These, in turn, eventually found their way into the Greek OT (the LXX or Septuagint). However, Jesus, the NT authors, the Apostolic Fathers (the generation who knew the apostles), and 1st Century Jews all did not consider the Apocryphal texts as Scriptural.

When Jerome was compiling his Latin version of the Bible based off of the Hebrew (completed c. AD 405), he followed the Greek tradition to insert them; however, he included prefaces that stressed the deuter-canonical (sub-canon) status of these books—that they were not Scripture and that the Hebrew list of Scripture represented the “clean jar”:

As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, let it read these two volumes for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church.

This distinction was lost on many and throughout the Middle Ages, numerous Roman Catholic doctrines were built upon references in the Apocrypha. For examples:

2 Macc 15:13–14 speaks of the dead praying for the living
…And Oni′ as spoke, saying, “This is a man who loves the brethren and prays much for the people and the holy city, Jeremiah, the prophet of God.”…
Tobit 12:9 and Sirach 3:3 speak of good works atoning for evil deeds
For almsgiving delivers from death, and it will purge away every sin. Those who perform deeds of charity[a] and of righteousness will have fullness of life;
Whoever honours his father atones for sins,
2 Macc 12:40–45 speaks of purgatory
…and they turned to prayer, beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out…
At the time of the Reformation (c. 1517) it was not only the doctrine of justification that became an issue of dispute but also the subject of authority: tradition or Scripture. What was Scripture, upon which alone true doctrine was to be found in? In the quest for the original sources (ad fontes—to the sources), a stripping away of Catholic tradition, the Reformers revisited this story and returned to the Canon of Jesus, or the Jewish Canon. (The Catholics, at the Council of Trent [1543–63] did the opposite by elevating the Apocrypha to make it fully Canonical). (Some Protestants, such as Anglicans, continued to include the Apocrypha but included them in a separate section. Their 39 Articles, VI, state: “And the other Books [the Apocrypha] the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine.”

In review there are 5 reasons to reject the Apocrypha as Scripture (however helpful it may be historically):
Jesus never cited it
It reads differently; pointing to its inferior quality
It contains doctrines that contradict the rest of Scripture (i.e. purgatory)
The warning of Jerome
Its origin/ that it is not part of the original Hebrew Bible
More than a mere quibble, this is a fundamental issue. What constitutes Scripture, the books we base our faith and practice, indeed stake our eternity upon? Christianity stands or falls not only on whether the Bible is true but also the question of what is Scripture. Is it the NT only, the OT/NT, including the apocrypha? Is the Canon open or closed, etc? (Revelation says it is closed).

There is great importance in defining what is the authoritative and inspired canon/rule of the Christian faith. This is why historic Baptist statements of faith, including our own, specify the number of books that make up the Bible, including the OT:

1689 Baptist Confession:
1.1- The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience,1 although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet they are not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and His will which is necessary unto salvation.2 Therefore it pleased the Lord at sundry times and in diversified manners to reveal Himself, and to declare (that) His will unto His church;3 and afterward for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan, and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which makes the Holy Scriptures to be most necessary, those former ways of God’s revealing His will unto His people being now completed.

[Then it quickly moves to state what these books are] 1.2: “Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testaments, which are these…[list of 66 books of the OT/NT]… All of which are given by the inspiration of God, to be the rule of faith and life”

1953 FEB Statement:

1- The Bible- “We believe that the Bible is the complete Word of God; that the sixty six books as originally written, comprising the Old and New Testaments, were fully inspired by the Spirit of God, and that they are, therefore, entirely free from error; that the Bible is the final authority in all matters of faith and practice and the true basis of Christian union.” (Emphasis added)

Though this question is not as pressing for many Christians today, still from time to time it arises, or we hear of the Apocrypha and wonder what it is. At the very least, it is helpful to know as Christians why we believe what we believe and what this is based upon, i.e. the 66 books of the OT/NT, together the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27).

How Many Books In The Ethiopian Orthodox Bible

“… [why does] the Eastern Orthodox Church has several books in their bible that fail to appear in our own [Catholic]? I was simply curious to why our Church rejects these books. … Thank you so much for your wonderful site and your time for reading this! -A fellow Catholic Christian”

Eastern Orthodox Church has no universally-approved Biblical canon
It is true that there are some additional books (such as 3 & 4 Maccabees) which are commonly (but not necessarily formally) found in modern, published Eastern Orthodox Old Testaments. We make this distinction between “commonly” and “formally” because the simple reality is that the modern Eastern Orthodox Church does not possess a formal, universally-approved Biblical canon. Rather, there is some confusion among Eastern Orthodox as to which books properly constitute the canon of the Bible. And, to understand this, you have to understand what “canon” originally referred to and how the canon of the Christian Bible (that is, the Biblical canon of the Catholic Church) actually came into being in the first place.

What does “canon” mean?
The term “canon” means is that a book is approved for reading at the Divine Liturgy — that is, the Mass. This is what “canon” (a Greek word meaning “rule”) originally referred to. The “canonical” books were those books which were approved for reading at the Liturgy.

Books which were not approved for reading at the Liturgy were called “apocryphal” (or “hidden”), and so excluded from the Liturgy. Among the “apocryphal” books, some were considered to be very orthodox and even inspired (but still not approved for public reading at the Liturgy), and others were considered to be uninspired or to contain errors (or even to be outright heretical). Only the “canonical” books were approved for reading at the Liturgy (the Mass).

Liturgy in the Fourth Century
Before the late 4th Century, each city-church had its own, local “canon” of the Bible, and these local canons differed from city-church to city-church —some local canons including books which are currently excluded from our present Bible (such as 1 Clement to the Corinthians, or the Epistle of Barnabas, or the Book of Enoch, etc.), and some local canons excluding books which are currently included in our present Bible (such as the Epistle of James, and Hebrews, and 2 Peter, and 2 & 3 John, Jude, and Revelation). The reason that city-churches had different local canons is because city-churches had different local Liturgies — that is, the Liturgy (form of worship) in the city-church of Rome was different from the Liturgy (form of worship) in the city-Church of Corinth, or the city-church of Ephesus, or Antioch, or Jerusalem, etc. This included the yearly Liturgical calendar, with different city-churches celebrating different local feast days on any given date.

Since the feast days differed, so did the corresponding readings for those feast days; and since there were only so many Liturgical readings (from so many canonical books) that a city-church could have in a given year, this limited the number of books in the local canon of that city-church.

As the Church entered the 4th Century, there was no such thing as one, universal “Bible”
(one universal Scriptural canon, which the entire, universal Church shared in common).

Arian Heresy
When the Arian heresy ripped the Church apart (pitting bishop against bishop, and city-church against city-church), this created an enormous problem, since you had different bishops (Arian vs. Catholic) quoting from different books (or sets of books) in defense of either Arianism or Catholic Trinitarianism. Needless to say, this complicated and prolonged the controversy, and made Arianism much harder to defeat. Well, by the year 382, when the Arian heresy was finally defeated, Pope St. Damasus of Rome (who had been the librarian for the church of Rome prior to becoming Pope) took it upon himself to correct this problem, and to guarantee that it would not happen again, by initiating steps for the formation of a universal canon of Scripture which all city-churches would hold in common, which would eliminate any book which even implied Arianism (or other condemned heresies).

Forth Century North Africa Councils
To “start the ball rolling” on this, Pope Damasus promoted a Biblical canon which was a synthesis of the canon of the city-church of Rome and that of the city-church of Alexandria –the two leading city-churches of the universal Church. Damasus then turned this proposed canon over to the bishops of North Africa for analysis and debate. And he did this for four reasons:

North Africa was not part of the theology schools of either Alexandria or Antioch, which were the two intellectual factions that had caused the Arian controversy.

North Africa had the most bishops per capita of anywhere in the universal Church at the time, so they would reflect a good sample of universal opinion among the bishops.

The North African Church had a traditional custom of meeting in council (either at Carthage or at Hippo) every two years, which would give them the ability to hash things out effectively; and
Many of the North African bishops were renowned scholars, such as St. Augustine of Hippo, who participated in the debate and helped to formulate the canon.

So, at both the councils of Hippo (393) and at Carthage (397), the North African bishops worked out the final canon of the both the Old and New Testaments for the universal Church. This is the present canon of the Catholic Church, which the North Africans then submitted to Rome for final ratification. Now, we’re not sure when this final ratification was given, but we do know that, by A.D. 405, Pope St. Innocent I was promoting the so-called “canon of Carthage” (397) throughout the Western Church. Rome would also have sent rescripts of its decison (final ratification of the Carthaginian canon) to Alexandria, the 2nd See of the universal Church and the primate in the East, with the expectation that Alexandria (as Eastern primate) would disseminate it throughout the East.

However, there was a significant issue in the other Eastern patriarchate of Antioch (which at the time represented the other half of the Eastern Church), as two (and occasionally three) Catholic bishops were all claiming to be the legitimate Patriarch of Antioch, while Alexandria reportedly followed Rome’s lead and accepted the Carthaginian canon. So, because of this, the canon of Carthage was never initially implemented or effectively accepted throughout the Patriarchate of Antioch, and since Constantinople (the Eastern imperial capital) was the liturgical dependent of Antioch (the Byzantine Rite being a modified form of the Antiochian Rite), Constantinople never initially implemented the canon of Carthage either. And, because of this, well into the 8th century, you have Byzantine and Antiochian fathers, such as St. John Damascene, recognizing books like 1 Clement to the Corinthians or the Book of Enoch as canonical works!

Byzantine Council of Trullo 7th-8th centuries
Now, this was modified somewhat when, at both the Byzantine Council of Trullo (692) and the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea II (787), both the church of Constantinople and the church of Antioch (along with Rome and Alexandria) recognized the binding canons of the Council of Carthage (397). This of course included the Carthaginian Biblical canon, which is thus TECHNICALLY binding on the modern Eastern Orthodox Church. 🙂 Yet, in terms of practice, the Antiochian (and thus Byzantine) parts of the Eastern Orthodox Church continued to use pre-Carthaginian books in their local canons …and for the simple reason that these books (e.g. 3 & 4 Maccabees or the apocryphal Esdras, etc.) were always read in the church of Antioch. The fact that the council of Carthage excluded these books (because they contain some problematic material) was ignored. And it’s because of this neglect of the Carthaginian canon (as authorized by both Trullo and Nicaea II) that modern Eastern Orthodoxy (coming out of the Antiochian Liturgical tradition) often include such books in their published canons today. Yet, technically, they SHOULD consider themselves bound by Trullo’s and Nicaea II’s authorization of Carthage. 🙂

Greek Orthodox Churches
In addition to this, there is the fact that Greek Orthodox Churches (especially) have a more fluid (less formal or legalistic) notion of how the idea of a “canonical book” should be applied. For example, in the Greek Orthodox Liturgy, they have NEVER read from the Book of Revelation. And, because of this, many modern Greeks will claim that Revelation is “not canonical” because they do not read from it in their Greek Liturgy. Now, the fact that the Russian Orthodox Church does read from Revelation in their, Russian Liturgy is beside the point. So, for the Eastern Orthodox, “canonical” does not really refer to a universally agreed-upon canon but to the common regional practice of specific Churches. Unfortunately, this has led some modern Greek and Antiochian Orthodox to claim that the Book of Revelation is “not inspired” and/or “not binding” on them, which is a modernist revision (a heretical novelty), which no ancient Greek or Antiochian would ever claim. For what their forefathers would say is that Revelation (or another book like it) is still divinely inspired but just not canonical (i.e., not approved for reading at their Liturgy). And, for those Easterners who did recognize the binding authority of the Cathaginian canon, they would of course say that Revelation is universally binding (i.e., canonical in a universal sense), but simply not part of their local Liturgical canon.