ACKNOWLEDGED Misleading information in the Canon Comparison tool

Several items which were originally provided to FL as separate entries have been merged in a misleading manner re: [quote]"This list attempts to harmonize the accepted Scriptures of all Orthodox churches, along with key local additions"

The first problem with this is that it mingles the Oriental Orthodox (which both adds and subtracts books) with the Eastern Orthodox. This shows a remarkable ignorance of church history - Oriental Orthodoxy split from the Eastern Orthodox-Catholic stream circa 451 following the Church of the East which split in 431. Oriental Orthodoxy is no closer to Eastern Orthodox than it is to Eastern Rite Catholicism as one can see if one reads the various ecumenical joint statements they have signed with both parties.

The second problem with this is that whoever did it did not recognize that Ethiopia Orthodox Tewahedo Church (New Haile Selassie Bible) and the Armenian Apostolic Church (the Asdvadzashunch Bible) are part of Oriental Orthodoxy.

EDIT: The third "problem" is that the RSV/NRSV ecumenical editions distinguish between the Greek Orthodox and the Slavonic Orthodox canons - an element of its sequencing of books.Resources such as Evans, Craig A. Ancient Texts for New Testament Studies: A Guide to the Background Literature. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011. explicitly treat the Greek and Slavonic canons as separate. In short, there is a general expectation that FL should follow, especially since their NRSV is the ecumenical edition. 

The Oriental Orthodox represent circa 80 million people with an additional 600,000 of the Church of the East being closely related. Different liturgy, different liturgical language, different canon, different church hierarchy ... the common word "orthodox" does not make it appropriate to merge them.

Why does it matter? The basic framework for understanding Christian history is to recognize that even while united, the church had three major threads - Syrian, Greek, and Latin - representing the major languages/cultures converting. For the first part of Christian history, the Syrian Church was the most prominent spreading to China, India, Ethiopia ... then it began shrinking under pressure from Islam. For the next part of Christian history, the expansion was primarily from the Greek strand moving northward, inventing the Cyrillic alphabet, ... The last strand to break out and spread outward was the Latin/Western branch, completing the Christianization of Europe (8th-12th century). Without understanding this basic framework, one makes Christian history either (a) history of the church in the West or (b) history of the English speaking church ... neither of which put you in a decent position to read the early Christian literature.

Note I had posted SUGGESTION: Oriental Orthodox before running into this atrocity.