Eastern ECFs on Deuterocanon

[MrPolo]

Do you Orthodox friends of mine have a resource or link to a page providing Eastern Fathers' quotations of the Deuterocanon as Scripture? I've got someone in another forum trying to tell me the East "almost universally rejected" the Deutercanon, which I think is plain nonsense based on the ones I already know who embraced the books. Thx!

 

[jckstraw72]

well i dont know of a specific page but i know, for instance, that Clement of Alexandria quotes from the Deuterocanon quite often.

 

[RobNJ]

This page should help:
The Banana Republican: The "Deuterocanon" Is Scripture!

 

[MrPolo]

Great link.

 

[buzuxi02]

The Orthodox church accepts 3 more deuterocanonical books than the latin canon. So they dont know what there talking about. Secondly the early church originally only defined which books should be read publicly in church. Baruch was always included but never Revelation. The term deuterocanonical is a 16th century western term, In Orthodoxy those books not read in church but still considered scripture were refered as Anagnoskemeno, meaning "worthy to be read".

Using the protestant understandinging"of what the early church used" would mean that Revelation is deuterocanonical (non canonical) but Baruch would be canonical.

St Athansius in his festal epistle 39 lays the groundwork for the NT canon, he mentions the OT canon with the addition of Baruch and then speaks of a second tier of books which are worthy to be read:

But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and 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 in any place a mention of apocryphal writings.

As we can see St Athanasius categorizes various books into 3 categories. The first category is the Canon, which at the time in the Church of Alexandria included Baruch but is now considered 'deuterocanonical'. He then lists books which are worthy to be read, included are some 2 NT books namely the didache and shepherd of Hermas. A third group are apocryphal, which have no value.

St Cyril of Jerusalem in 312 a.d. makes the same case but does not list Revelation as part of the canon (most likely relegating it to the second tier of books- worthy to be read):
Then of the New Testament there are four Gospels only, for the rest have false titles and are harmful. The Manicheans also wrote a gospel according to Thomas, which being smeared with the fragrance of the name 'Gospel' destroys the souls of those who are rather simple-minded. 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 latest work of disciples, the fourteen Epistles of Paul. But all the rest be put aside in a secondary rank. And whatever books are not read in the churches, do not read these even by yourself, as you have already heard [me say concerning the Old Testament apocrypha]. (4.36)

So we have Cyril make mention of books placed in the second rank. Once again apocryphal books are outright rejected. Thus Apocryphal books are not the same as the deuterocanonical books. In the early church apocryphal books were heretical, the deuterocanonical were scripture but in a second rank since they were not read publicly in church. in the early church canonical books did not mean they were the only scripture recognized, but only those sure books handed down and worthy of being read in LITURGY. The deuterocanonical books were worthy of being read by the laity and catechumens but not in liturgy. They were read in the church in the sense of privatley, as it is to this day.

The council of Laodicea which is binding upon the Orthodox church held in 363 a.d. makes this rule:
Canon 59. Let no private psalms nor any uncanonical books be read in the church, but only the canonical ones of the New and Old Testament.

In this canon we see the book of Revelation not included as canonical- using the understanding of the early church which ranked scripture into 2 categories. We see from the reference to private psalms (of the pious laity) that this canon is not refering to heretical apocryphal books, these were already rejected and not a point of dispute. The uncanonical books mentioned in this canon are the deuterocanonical which were still considered scripture and worthy of being read privately.

The point is todays understanding of what constitutes 'scripture' is far different than that of the early church.

 

[MrPolo]

the early church which ranked scripture into 2 categories. .... The point is todays understanding of what constitutes 'scripture' is far different than that of the early church.

Yes yes! The modern Christian is quite illiterate on this issue.

 

[Dorothea]

The Orthodox church accepts 3 more deuterocanonical books than the latin canon. So they dont know what there talking about. Secondly the early church originally only defined which books should be read publicly in church. Baruch was always included but never Revelation. The term deuterocanonical is a 16th century western term, In Orthodoxy those books not read in church but still considered scripture were refered as Anagnoskemeno, meaning "worthy to be read".

Using the protestant understandinging"of what the early church used" would mean that Revelation is deuterocanonical (non canonical) but Baruch would be canonical.

St Athansius in his festal epistle 39 lays the groundwork for the NT canon, he mentions the OT canon with the addition of Baruch and then speaks of a second tier of books which are worthy to be read:

But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and 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 in any place a mention of apocryphal writings.

As we can see St Athanasius categorizes various books into 3 categories. The first category is the Canon, which at the time in the Church of Alexandria included Baruch but is now considered 'deuterocanonical'. He then lists books which are worthy to be read, included are some 2 NT books namely the didache and shepherd of Hermas. A third group are apocryphal, which have no value.

St Cyril of Jerusalem in 312 a.d. makes the same case but does not list Revelation as part of the canon (most likely relegating it to the second tier of books- worthy to be read):
Then of the New Testament there are four Gospels only, for the rest have false titles and are harmful. The Manicheans also wrote a gospel according to Thomas, which being smeared with the fragrance of the name 'Gospel' destroys the souls of those who are rather simple-minded. 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 latest work of disciples, the fourteen Epistles of Paul. But all the rest be put aside in a secondary rank. And whatever books are not read in the churches, do not read these even by yourself, as you have already heard [me say concerning the Old Testament apocrypha]. (4.36)

So we have Cyril make mention of books placed in the second rank. Once again apocryphal books are outright rejected. Thus Apocryphal books are not the same as the deuterocanonical books. In the early church apocryphal books were heretical, the deuterocanonical were scripture but in a second rank since they were not read publicly in church. in the early church canonical books did not mean they were the only scripture recognized, but only those sure books handed down and worthy of being read in LITURGY. The deuterocanonical books were worthy of being read by the laity and catechumens but not in liturgy. They were read in the church in the sense of privatley, as it is to this day.

The council of Laodicea which is binding upon the Orthodox church held in 363 a.d. makes this rule:
Canon 59. Let no private psalms nor any uncanonical books be read in the church, but only the canonical ones of the New and Old Testament.

In this canon we see the book of Revelation not included as canonical- using the understanding of the early church which ranked scripture into 2 categories. We see from the reference to private psalms (of the pious laity) that this canon is not refering to heretical apocryphal books, these were already rejected and not a point of dispute. The uncanonical books mentioned in this canon are the deuterocanonical which were still considered scripture and worthy of being read privately.

The point is todays understanding of what constitutes 'scripture' is far different than that of the early church.

Again, I've learned something new, and it's not even 8 a.m. here yet! Thanks, buzuxi, for this info, and thank MrPolo, for opening this subject for this information to be shared!

 

[Philothei]

Hey Mr. Polo Subscribing here

 

[ClementofRome]

I know that you asked about the east, but I wrote my doctoral dissertation on Clement of Rome's (96AD) use of the Jewish scriptures and he uses the Deutero-canon without reserve!

 

[MrPolo]

Thanks, all. Last I checked the guy at the other forum who tried to make the claim never responded to my inquiry that he name these Eastern Fathers who rejected the Deuterocanon en masse. But I did get good resources from you all if this comes up again in the future.

 

[Etsi]

He was probably just repeating something he'd either been told or read in some pamplet...usually incomplete and zero references (unless to reference someone else that is just repeating the same thing, also with zero references). You know, the whole, repeat a lie often enough and eventually someone will believe you because it vibes with what they've already chosen to believe anyway.

 

[Macarius]

The only reference I can think of that would be generally known is Eusebius, the church historian, who references a list of OT books that excludes the deuterocanon. But he is writing in the early fourth century, was a heretic, was an isolated witness, and full of hot air.

 

[88Devin07]

I was just listening to Presbertyra Dr Jeannie Constantinou where she points out, that St. Paul calls the "Deuterocanonical" scriptures are sacred...
Where does he say this?

In the New Testament, when St. Paul refers to the scriptures as sacred, he is referring to the Old Testament (obviously, since the New Testament didn't exist yet). At the time, the Jews of the period used the Septuagint, which was the Greek text of the Old Testament, and the Septuagint included the so-called Deuterocanonical books. So when St. Paul refers to the scriptures as sacred scripture, he is referring to the Septuagint, which includes all the books of the Old Testament.

 

[Etsi]

The only reference I can think of that would be generally known is Eusebius, the church historian, who references a list of OT books that excludes the deuterocanon. But he is writing in the early fourth century, was a heretic, was an isolated witness, and full of hot air.

Yes, he is often quoted in Protestant circles. May I ask how he was a heretic?

 

[88Devin07]

Yes, he is often quoted in Protestant circles. May I ask how he was a heretic?

He was an Arian, and suppored Arius at the First Ecumenical Council. However he later (he was almost excommunicated) repented and accepted the Council & the Creed. I don't know if he erred again after that though.

 

[MrPolo]

Currently I'm having a rather unproductive conversation with someone else in that same thread who insists the books of the Protestant Bible are the only validly Scriptural books. The reasons he gives are criteria of his own design (such as "has to be written in Hebrew" or "quoted in NT"). It doesn't take long to realize his criteria either supports deuterocanonical books or disqualifies books in his own Bible. And at the same time, he unwittingly appoints himself as the authoritative declarer of criteria. Not holding my breath for him to acknowledge any of that, but nevertheless...

 

[Macarius]

Currently I'm having a rather unproductive conversation with someone else in that same thread who insists the books of the Protestant Bible are the only validly Scriptural books. The reasons he gives are criteria of his own design (such as "has to be written in Hebrew" or "quoted in NT"). It doesn't take long to realize his criteria either supports deuterocanonical books or disqualifies books in his own Bible. And at the same time, he unwittingly appoints himself as the authoritative declarer of criteria. Not holding my breath for him to acknowledge any of that, but nevertheless...

As a word of encouragement, I would go ahead and hold your breath. The issue of the canon has been the undoing of quite a few sola-scripturists. You are right that the criteria he is using disqualifies his own books. Additionally, arm yourself well with this question: "Where does the Bible tell us that ___________ is the criteria for selecting Biblical books?"

This always takes out the "must be Hebrew" thing (which, incidently, would exclude the NT as well as the Deuterocanon).

Ultimately, Protestants want to accept a book because it is inspired by the Holy Spirit. The is good - we also wish for this. The Holy Spirit does not act divorced from history, however, so we must then ask "How did the Holy Spirit chose to reveal His will in inspiring these books?" The answer, if one looks honestly that the history, is through the broad consensus of the church over the course of the 1st millenium AD (esp the first four centuries). We can debate all we want about what that means... but that was how it went down. That means it occured through the Church - through tradition.

This is less problematic for the Lutheran, who accepts tradition. But the problem still exists since they then have to justify rejecting the deuterocanon. It makes it all a bit circular.

In Christ,
Macarius

 

[Etsi]

As a word of encouragement, I would go ahead and hold your breath. The issue of the canon has been the undoing of quite a few sola-scripturists.

Myself included.

 

[ClementofRome]

Myself included.

ME TOO!

I was a staunch sola scripturist for many years....evangelical seminary and the whole bit.....

SS is assumption laden, as is EO, but we have history on our side!

 

[All4Christ]

ME TOO!

I was a staunch sola scripturist for many years....evangelical seminary and the whole bit.....

SS is assumption laden, as is EO, but we have history on our side!

Me as well My Bible class in college proved to me that SS doesn't quite add up. I don't think that was their intention, but it made me look elsewhere - to eventually find Orthodoxy.