Orthodoxy and the Biblical Canon

[garysibio]

I'm not looking to start a debate over whose biblical canon is correct. I just have a simple question.

I've been thinking about the biblical canon lately and I know how the Roman Catholics arrive at theirs and how the Protestants get theirs. I haven't seen anything about the Orthodox churches, however.

I know the churches were still united for the Councils of Hippo and Carthage in the 390s but those were not ecumenical councils so they were not binding. The Roman Catholics made their dogmatic declaration on the canon at the Council of Trent in 1546 but the churches had split by then so the Orthodox churches would not accept that particular decree.

Do the Orthodox churches have a dogmatically defined canon and, if so, how and when was it decreed?

 

[Cappadocious]

Technically there is no strict Old Testament canon in the Orthodox Church (those who cite Trullo's ratifications will have problems with contradictory canon lists). Rather, usage in the Churches throughout the centuries loosely determines this, with the primary books always being used and secondary books varying in use.

And what do you know? It worked out pretty well, still going strong.

 

[garysibio]

Technically there is no strict Old Testament canon in the Orthodox Church (those who cite Trullo's ratifications will have problems with contradictory canon lists). Rather, usage in the Churches throughout the centuries loosely determines this, with the primary books always being used and secondary books varying in use.

And what do you know? It worked out pretty well, still going strong.

Thanks for the response. i appreciate it.

I suspected that was the case but I didn't know for certain.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Welcome to TAW, garysibio!

Cappadocious, I realize we don't have a "technical cannon" but among the EO Churches as far as use, would you say agreement is pretty tight?

I'm aware that the Ethiopian Church, for example, has a more extensive canon. But what about those we are in communion with? I wasn't sure of any actual disagreement?

Thanks!

 

[buzuxi02]

The term "canon of scripture" is used differently than in western usage. Canon is a term in eastern usage that simply denotes the books officially read in liturgy (and other Church services) during the course of the liturgical calendar.

There are of course numerous councils and canonical epistles which have laid down lists which Trullo has recieved. For example the NT is similiar to the western list of books with the exception of Revelation which is never read in Liturgy hence non-canonical. It is still scripture just not read publicly in the liturgy. All the Father's speak of a second tier of books for BOTH the old and the new testaments. These books are worthy to be read and the church officially sanctions them and encourages their study but you cant "listen" to them as they tend not to be incorporated into the Liturgy.

 

[Cappadocious]

Cappadocious, I realize we don't have a "technical cannon" but among the EO Churches as far as use, would you say agreement is pretty tight?

In the past few centuries, as far as I know, yes.

I'm aware that the Ethiopian Church, for example, has a more extensive canon. But what about those we are in communion with? I wasn't sure of any actual disagreement?

I haven't studied the Antiochian Church's history well enough to know, they may have been differences before certain forces in Constantinople imposed Constantinopolitan norms across the other three Rum patriarchates.

As far as I know, no differences exist today.

 

[~Anastasia~]

In the past few centuries, as far as I know, yes.


I haven't studied the Antiochian Church's history well enough to know, they may have been differences before certain forces in Constantinople imposed Constantinopolitan norms across the other three Rum patriarchates.

As far as I know, no differences exist today.

Thank you for the reply!

 

[ZaidaBoBaida]

What are the second tier books?

 

[Cappadocious]

From Orthodoxwiki:

• I Esdras
  
• The portion of II Esdras called the "Prayer of Manasseh"
• Tobit
• Judith
• Portions of Esther
• Wisdom of Solomon
• Wisdom of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus)
• Baruch
• Epistle of Jeremiah
• The portions of Daniel:
  • Song of the Three Children
  • Susanna
  • Bel and the Dragon
• Psalm 151
• I Maccabees
• II Maccabees
• III Maccabees
• IV Maccabees

 

[buzuxi02]

What are the second tier books?

For the NT:
Revelation
1&2 Clement
Hermas
Didache

The above books are all included in the Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Alexandrinus and probably was found in the Codex Vaticanus.

Also the book of Baruch is NEVER listed as deuterocanonical. All lists have it as a canonical book of the OT. Thinking Baruch is deuterocanonical is a modern myth.

 

[prodromos]

The Song of the Three Children is also chanted in Vespers of Holy Saturday, so I'm not sure that it would really be considered as 2nd tier.

 

[buzuxi02]

Prodromos,

Your actually correct, some of these books are extensions of books already listed. In the case of the Song of the Three Children its part of the book of Daniel (I believe its meant to be a portion of ch 3) and is found in the LXX

 

[ArmyMatt]

For the NT:
Revelation
1&2 Clement
Hermas
Didache

The above books are all included in the Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Sinaiticus and probably was found in the Codex Vaticanus.

Also the book of Baruch is NEVER listed as deuterocanonical. All lists have it as a canonical book of the OT. Thinking Baruch is deuterocanonical is a modern myth.

that's an interesting list, especially since Revelation is in the Bible yet not read, and the others are counted in Patristics just after the Apostles. eeeeeenteresting

 

[buzuxi02]

The books of Hermas and Didache are also mentioned in St Athanasios 39th festal epistle where he includes them alongside Tobit, Judith and Wisdom of Solomon.

St Cyril of Jerusalem in his list says to reject apocryphal books, only read the canonical books in church and place the rest of the books into the second tier. St. Cyril doesnt tell us what the second tier books are, but he does OMIT the book of Revelation in his list of canonical books which are to be read in Church.. Canons 59 and 60 of Laodicea also omits Revelation in their canonical list of NT books.
In the "deuterocanonical" NT books we can even include the Epistle of Barnabas which is also found in the Codex Sinaiticus manuscript.

 

[buzuxi02]

Canon 85 of the Holy Apostles is interesting. It lists the OT including the deuterocanonical books. For the NT it omits the book of Revelation but includes 1&2 Clement.

 

[ZaidaBoBaida]

The books of Hermas and Didache are also mentioned in St Athanasios 39th festal epistle where he includes them alongside Tobit, Judith and Wisdom of Solomon.

St Cyril of Jerusalem in his list says to reject apocryphal books, only read the canonical books in church and place the rest of the books into the second tier. St. Cyril doesnt tell us what the second tier books are, but he does OMIT the book of Revelation in his list of canonical books which are to be read in Church.. Canons 59 and 60 of Laodicea also omits Revelation in their canonical list of NT books.
In the "deuterocanonical" NT books we can even include the Epistle of Barnabas which is also found in the Codex Sinaiticus manuscript.

Have you ever read Revelation? I don't think there's any great wonder that Laodicea would leave it out of their list f canonical books. Jesus really lets them have it in the beginning.

 

[buzuxi02]

Lol, the list of the council of Laodicea is basically that of St. Cyril of Jerusalem.
Even the lists that include Revelation such as the canon of the African Code makes clear its only canonical if its read aloud in church. The same canon also sanctions the reading of hagiography alongside only the canonical books on the anniversary of a the saint's martyrdom.

The canonical epistle of St Gregory Nazianzen is quite interesting. He omits the book of Revelation as one of the canonical books and warns never to formulate any doctrine from books not found on his list. We know from his writings including the l very same epistle that he accepted the book of revelation as scripture. Yet he makes clear only those in his list are genuine canonical books. Revelation would fall into the second tier of ecclesiastical books.

 

[ZaidaBoBaida]

Yeah well Revelation is kind of special. Large parts of it read like a bad acid trip. Didn't Charles Manson also jam on Revelation?

 

[buzuxi02]

Here are "excerpts" of the authoratative Fathers and councils who gave lists of NT books accepted by the Orthodox Church:
St Cyril of Jerusalem:

Study earnestly these only which we read openly in the Church. Far wiser and more pious than thyself were the Apostles, and the bishops of old time, the presidents of the Church who handed down these books. .....Then of the New Testament there are the four Gospels only, for the rest have false titles and are mischievous. The Manichaeans also wrote a Gospel according to Thomas, which being tinctured with the fragrance of the evangelic title corrupts the souls of the simple sort. Receive also the Acts of the Twelve Apostles; and in addition to these the seven Catholic Epistles of James, Peter, John, and Jude; and as a seal upon them all, and the last work of the disciples, the fourteen Epistles of Paul . But let all the rest be put aside in a secondary rank. And whatever books are not read in Churches, these read not even by thyself, as thou hast heard me say.


Council of Laodicea Canons 59&60:

59. Let no private psalms nor any uncanonical books be read in church, but only the canonical ones of the New and Old Testament.

60 It is proper to recognize as many books as these:....... And the books of the New Testament: 4 Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles; seven catholic epistles, namely, 1 of James, 2 of Peter, 3 of John, 1 of Jude; fourteen epistles of Paul, 1 to the Romans, 2 to the Corinthians, 1 to the Galatians, 1 to the Ephesians, 1 to the Philippians, 1 to the Colossians, 2 to the Thessalonians, 1 to the Hebrews, 2 to Timothy, 1 to Titus, and 1 to Philemon.


St Gregory of Nazianzen:

The divine oracles should always on the tongue and in the mind be rehearsed. For God will indeed give a reward for this labor,

so that you may obtain light from anything hidden, or, what is far better, that you may be spurred by God to greater purity,

and thirdly, be called away from the cares of the world by such study. But let not extraneous books seduce your mind...
But now count also [the books] of the New Mystery; Matthew indeed wrote for the Hebrews the wonderful works of Christ,
And mark for Italy, Luke for Greece, John, the great preacher, for all, walking in heaven.
Then the Acts of the wise apostles, And fourteen Epistles of Paul,
And seven Catholic [Epistles], of which James is one, Two of Peter, three of John again.
And Jude's is the seventh, You have all. If there is any besides these, it is not among the genuine [books]



Canon 85 of the Holy Apostles:

Let the following books be esteemed venerable and holy by all of you, both clergy and laity. Of the Old Testament: the five books of Moses, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy; one of Joshua the son of Nun; one of the Judges; one of Ruth; four of the Kings; two of Paralipomena (the books of Chronicles); two of Ezra; one of Esther; [one of Judith;] three of the Maccabees; one of Job; the one hundred and fifty Psalms; three books of Solomon: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs; the sixteen of the Prophets. And see that those newly come to discipleship become acquainted with the Wisdom of the learned Sirach. And ours, that is, of the New Testament, are the four Gospels, of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John; the fourteen epistles of Paul; two epistles of Peter; three of John; one of James; one of Jude; two epistles of Clement; [and the Constitutions dedicated to you, the bishops, by me, Clement, in eight books, which it is not appropriate to make public before all, because of the mysteries contained in them;] and the Acts of us, the Apostles.


(On a side note the council of Trullo struck down the 8 books of the "Constitutions" (mentioned above) as many of the textual variants were deemed corrupt. Notice how all of the above reject Revelation from the canonical tier. Now for the two approved lists in Orthodoxy which do list Revelation under the 'canonical banner"


Third council of Carthage (African code):

It was also determined that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in the Church under the title of divine Scriptures. The Canonical Scriptures are these: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, 3 two books of Paraleipomena, 4 Job, the Psalter, five books of Solomon, 5 the books of the twelve prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezechiel, Daniel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, 6 two books of the Maccabees. Of the New Testament: four books of the Gospels, one book of the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of the Apostle Paul, one epistle of the same [writer] to the Hebrews, two Epistles of the Apostle Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude, one book of the Apocalypse of John. Let this be made known also to our brother and fellow-priest Boniface, or to other bishops of those parts, for the purpose of confirming that Canon. because we have received from our fathers that those books must be read in the Church. Let it also be allowed that the Passions of Martyrs be read when their festivals are kept.



St Athanasius 39th festal epistle:

But since we have made mention of heretics as dead, but of ourselves as possessing the Divine Scriptures for salvation; and since I fear lest, as Paul wrote to the Corinthians, some few of the simple should be beguiled from their simplicity and purity, by the subtilty of certain men, and should henceforth read other books—those called apocryphal—led astray by the similarity of their names with the true books; ...
Again, it is not tedious to speak of the books of the New Testament. These are: the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. After these, The Acts of the Apostles, and the seven epistles called Catholic: of James, one; of Peter, two, of John, three; after these, one of Jude. In addition, there are fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, written in this order: the first, to the Romans; then, two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians, then, to the Philippians; then, to the Colossians; after these, two of the Thessalonians; and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John. These are the fountains of salvation, that he who thirsts may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone the teaching of godliness is proclaimed. Let no one add to these; let nothing be taken away from them. ..But for the sake of greater exactness I add this also, writing under obligation, as it were. There are other books besides these, indeed not received as canonical but having been appointed by our fathers to be read to those just approaching and wishing to be instructed in the word of godliness: Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, 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 any place a mention of secret writings.

 

[buzuxi02]

Yeah well Revelation is kind of special. Large parts of it read like a bad acid trip. Didn't Charles Manson also jam on Revelation?

Well yeah, Many crazies interpret themselves as a member of the four horsemen, like the murderer who thought the red horse of Revelation was refering to his red harley davidson.

But in seriousness the book of Revelation in Orthodoxy truly is a deuterocanonical book in all respects. First its never read publicly aloud in liturgy which is the hallmark of a deuterocanonical book, and secondly devising doctrine from them are frowned upon precisely because of Revelation! The adherents of chiliasm credited Revelation as the source of their doctrine making the Apocalypse a frowned upon book. This is really the veiled criticism that St Gregory of Nazianzen was making when he mentioned extraneous books that seduce the mind. Gregory actually liked and quoted from Revelation in some of his writings but prefered that book to be kept low key the same way canon 85 of the Apostles, taught about the 8 books of the constitutions to be kept hush hush because of the mysteries they contain..

But you can begin to get the idea how the term "canon" of scripture was used in the early church when you read the lists. the term 'canon' was really just an adjective to describe the officially read books during the ecclesiastical services.