Here’s the Canon of the OT which is current in Orthodoxy:
Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
Joshua
Judges
Ruth
1 Samuel
2 Samuel
1 Kings
2 Kings
1 Chronicles
2 Chronicles
[Prayer of Manasseh]
1 Esdras
Ezra
Nehemiah
Tobit
Judith
Esther (with insertions)
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees
[3 Maccabees]
[4 Maccabees]
Job
Psalms
[Psalm no. 151]
[Odes]
Proverbs
Ecclesiastes
Song of Songs
Wisdom of Solomon
Ecclesiasticus
[Psalms of Solomon]
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Lamentations
Baruch
Epistle of Jeremiah
Ezekiel
Daniel
Hosea
Joel
Amos
Obadiah
Jonah
Micah
Nahum
Habakkuk
Zephaniah
Haggai
Zechariah
Malachi
I wouldn’t know if Unitarians read the Bible (the group near me uses a different “holy book” each week), or at least if they read it more than other religious writings, but assuming they and you do, you know that these various books were written at various times and also translated into the Greek Septuagint at various times, which is why I said 3rd-1st century BC. To the best of my knowledge there is no known copy earlier than about the 4th century AD though certainly its books are referred to before that.
You know, OR, technically speaking there is no official “bible” as such in Orthodoxy. There are simply the scriptures which are considered canonical and used in the Liturgies and devotions and services of The Church. For that reason, this sort of discussion, which gets Westerners so wound up and leads them to say such silly things as we’ve seen here, really has little or no meaning for Orthodox Christians.
(MLG) “Sirach 15: 14-20
(MLG) That is not Scripture.”
Its not, eh? Says who, some 16th century German or a group of post Resurrection Jews who wanted to “discredit” Christianity?
I provided you with Scripture;
Romans 3:
1] Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? [2] Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews are entrusted with the oracles of God.
The same "post Ressurection" Jews, not the Hellenized version, who set the O.T. Cannon in 90AD.
You, on the other hand, can't find a single scrap of paper which is earlier than the 4th century yet your version is the "authentic" one.
" You know, OR, technically speaking there is no official “bible” as such in Orthodoxy. There are simply the scriptures which are considered canonical and used in the Liturgies and devotions and services of The Church..."
Technically speaking, it is just as well you have no "official" Bible. You take more liberties with Scripture than your Latin cousins. You are smart enough however to add your "technical" disclaimer.
It might be better for you to distance yourself from discussions concerning Scripture. It is obvious you are not working with history or knowledge on your side.