Is 4 Maccabees part of the Deuterocanon in the Georgian Church?
- Thread starter rakovsky
- Start date
All4Christ,
The short answer is that Protestant and Catholic printers marking books that they consider "noncanonical" seems to be an occasional or even normal practice in modern times, and for EO printers for about the last 70 years. Further, it seems a surprisingly (for me) occasional or even frequent POV in Eastern Christianity worldwide over many centuries to consider the Deuterocanon to be "noncanonical."
You are getting into three issues: 1. Including Noncanonical Books in Bibles, 2. Marking the Noncanonical Books, and 3. defining and considering the EO Deuterocanon (eg. 1-3 Maccabees, but not 4 Maccabees) as noncanonical.
1. Inclusion of Clearly Noncanonical Books.
First, occasionally over centuries, Bible codices included books that were noncanonical. An easy example is how some Greek Bibles included Josephus' writing, which was not canonical. A second easy example is 4 Esdras. Jerome wrote that it was Apocryphal, but he included it in his Vulgate Latin translation of the Bible anyway. SOURCE: https://christiantruth.com/articles/articles-roman-catholicism/apocryphaintroduction/apocryphapart2/
AFAIK, there was no Western or Eastern Conciliar decision saying that 4 Esdras was "canonical", even though 4 Esdras was still getting included in Bibles, without getting marked uncanonical.
During the period following the invention of the Printing press, the Russian Bible printers used the Vulgate as a source for their Russian Bibles, so they included 4 Esdras, renaming it 3 Esdras. However, there was no official decision by the Russian Church labeling 4 Esdras "canonical."
4 Maccabees had a similar history in the Greek Church, with there being no official decision or patristic opinion that it was "canon." Yet it was included in Greek Bibles because the Greek printings used the Alexandrian codex as a template, and the Alexandrian Codex contained 4 Macc.
2. Marking Noncanonical books in EO Bibles.
The KJV put all the books they considered noncanonical in a section they titled Apocrypha.
In 1592, Pope Clement VIII, after the Council of Trent excluded 4 Esdras from the Catholic canon, put 4 Esdras in an "appendix" section.
In the mid-20th century, the Russian Synodal Edition of the Bible put asterisks next to all OT books outside the Protocanon (eg. 1-4 Maccabees are outside the Protocanon) and put a footnote for the asterisk saying that they were noncanonical. The Georgian Bible with the asterisks that I linked to is doing the same thing, marking 1-4 Macc etc. as noncanonical. The Greek Orthodox Bibles moved 4 Macc. to an appendix sometime in the last 100 years. I guess it was around 1970-1990.
IMO, marking noncanonical books is a fine practice, so long as the printer is correct in his evaluation of which ones are canonical.
3. Defining the canon.
Apparently, the Eastern tradition (eg. Laodicea and St Gregory the Theologian) has a more limited OT canon than the Western one (eg. St. Augustine and Carthage):
Asteriktos on the OC.net forum pointed me to this list of patristic Bible Book lists:
Ancient Canon Lists
Asteriktos wrote to me:
The Longer Catechism of The Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Church • Pravoslavieto.com
Asteriktos also quoted to me numerous Eastern Father who agreed with the following letters-based Hebrew reasoning about the OT:
"The reason for reckoning twenty-two books of the Old Testament is that this corresponds with the number of the [Hebrew] letters. They are counted thus according to old tradition... To this some add Tobit and Judith to make twenty-four books, according to the number of the Greek letters, which is the language used among Hebrews and Greeks gathered in Rome." (St. Hilary of Poitiers, Exposition of the Psalms 15)
In my understanding of Orthodoxy, the Ecumenical Councils are the highest authority. The Quintsext E.C. of Trullo enumerated in Canon 2 Church fathers and local councils that gave lists of Bible Books, like some of those in the chart above. Trullo concluded that it (Trullo) affirmed those lists.
For purposes of this forum thread, suffice it to say that Trullo's book lists did not include 4 Macc, as P. Boumis' article on those lists reflects:
http://www.ecclesia.gr/greek/press/theologia/material/2007_2_5_Boumis.pdf
But to answer you more specifically, some of Trullo's book lists (eg. Carthage's list) had more books than others (eg. Laodicea). To generalize, the books in the longer pool of books (eg. books like Baruch) that are not in the shorter pool of books -the "Protocanon" (specifically the limited books of the rabbis and Protestants) - make up the EO "Deuterocanon." The term "Deuterocanon" by the way is a term created by Catholic theologians.
EOs as a whole don't seem to have a consensus on where the dividing line of the canon falls between these two "pools" of books accepted by Trullo. This is because Trullo did not explicitly specify where the dividing line lay. It simply stated that it accepted all of the conciliar and patristic book lists that it (Canon 2) mentioned. As a result, Canon 2 of Trullo could be read inclusively as including the Deuterocanon or exclusively as excluding the Deuterocanon. Boumis, in his article that I linked to above, interprets Trullo's lists inclusively and considers the EO Deuterocanon to be "canonical." In contrast, Russian Church common parlance seems to informally refer to all books outside the Protocanon as noncanonical, and typically does not use the term "Deuterocanon." The Orthodox Encyclopedia has a quite long article on this topic in detail here:
https://www.pravenc.ru/text/Канон библейский.html
The Catholic Church, by comparison, held their "Ecumenical" Council of Trent to solve the issue of the Canon's boundary. In the Catholic Church, all books that make up the Catholic "Deuterocanon" (eg. Tobit) definitely belong in the Catholic Canon, officially, as a result of Trent. So in the Catholic Church, it is clear and simple that "Deuterocanon + Protocanon = Canon." The Catholic Church by the way excludes a few books from the Catholic Canon that are in the "Deuterocanon" of the EO Church. One of them might be the Epistle of Jeremiah.
Attachments
Upvote
0
Where did you read that the 1700's version considered it canonical?Interesting. Perhaps it was the influence of being part of the Russian church in the 19th century? I have read that the version in the 1700s included it as canonical, but as I cannot read Georgian and do not have access to texts from that time, I cannot verify it.
Unless the 1700's version specified explicitly that it was "canonical," then in reality what happened was that the 1700's version simply included 4 Macc. among its Biblical books like the Greek Bible did at that time, without officially categorizing it as canonical or noncanonical. Thus, a person reading the Georgian Bible at that time in history could conclude that the Georgian Bible was considering 4 Macc. to be canonical due merely to the book's inclusion next to known canonical Biblical books, when in fact such a conclusion was not necessarily correct. My guess based on the available information and practices of the time (eg. the Greek Bible's inclusion of 4 Macc. without designating its status) leads me to expect that this misreading of the 1700's version is what occurred.
Upvote
0
- Mar 11, 2003
- 11,683
- 8,019
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
I need to find the sources. I have a tendency to read through a lot of things though, so it may take time to sift through it all. It is, however, very standard in pretty much every source I read that Maccabees 4 was considered canonical.
I’m not an expert on the Georgian Bible by a long shot, so consider this to be discussion rather than me claiming to be authoritative on the subject.
Upvote
0
- Mar 11, 2003
- 11,683
- 8,019
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
Please note though that I was not stating that the 1672 synod said Maccabees 4 was canonical.
I absolutely agree that the ratified councils were not consistent about the books. I chose the latest council of Carthage ratified as councils at times supersede previous councils (since you said that the canon was determined at that ecumenical council). It makes more sense if you are considering it to be a pool of books instead of the last articulation within the ratified councils.
I am aware the term deuterocanon is Western, but was not aware that the Russian Church labeled them non canonical. Orthodoxy does not consider all books to be of equal importance though even when it is all considered to be canonical.
I will need to respond to the rest later. Thanks for the interesting information!
Upvote
0
Can you be more specific?
What kinds of sources?
Do you mean Georgian language writings talking about the Georgian canon, or do you mean English language sources talking about the EO canon in general? I don't think it would be in general English language sources talking about the EO canon in general, since Trullo's sources that it affirmed did not affirm 4 Macc. At most, Apostolic Canon 85 affirmed 1-3 Macc. and was affirmed by Trullo. My understanding (until I dug into this topic more) was that all the OT books in the EO Bible were canonical except for Slavic 3 Esdras and 4 Macc.
After digging into this topic more, I am more uncertain about whether the Deuterocanon is canon or not. Boumis argues that the Deuterocanon (eg. 1-3 Macc.) affirmed by Trullo is canon. That is, Boumis argues for an inclusive reading of Trullo.
My sense at this point is that either Trullo was meant inclusively or else it is intentionally ambiguous.
Further, I am not aware of the term "noncanonical" being an official term for the Deuterocanon in the Russian Church. For example, some of the Deuterocanon is in fact in the canon of what is chanted and read publicly in the prescribed Russian Church services. Rather, "noncanonical" is a term of parlance in the Russian heritage, whereas "Deuterocanon" is an official Roman Catholic term created by a post-schism, Roman Catholic theologian and accepted by the RC Church. The term might even have been created in the time of Trent.
Upvote
0
I think that this might have been where I read about the Armenian connection:
https://christianity.stackexchange....urch-are-in-full-communion-with-the-eastern-o
Actually, Lance's information doesn't prove that either the Georgian or Armenian Churches officially consider 4 Maccabees to be in the "Canon". The mere fact that a Bible, like those printed in the Greek Church, physically include 4 Macc. or for that matter 3 Esdras or Josephus or Barnabas or the Ascension of Isaiah, does not prove whether that Church (eg. the Armenian, Georgian, or Greek Church) considers those texts put in their Bibles to be "canonical."
For example, consider these texts that were either once considered canonical by some, or else were considered apocryphal yet included in physical Armenian Bibles:
- 70-200 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (Has Qumranite themes; St.Athanasius lists it among Apocrypha; 17th c. Armenian Bible apocrypha)
- 70-200 Odes of Solomon (quoted by Lactantius, 6th c. Synopsis Sacrae Scripture says it's read to catechumens, The stichometries of Pseudo-Athanasius (6th c.) and Nicephorous (9th c.) list it among the Scriptures; quoted by Pistis Sophia & maybe gnostic)
- 1st - early 3rd c. Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah (Apostolic Constitutions consider it apocryphal; an Armenian Bible included it as apocryphal; Numerous translations suggest widespread use; some scholars find it Docetic)
Some Stack Exchange users in the webpage that I linked to above try to address the issue by suggesting that unlike the RC and Protestant Churches, Orthodox Churches have an "open" canon, and that when Trullo affirmed Biblical canon lists, Trullo was not trying to put a lid on the canon. I am skeptical of this suggestion and its "open" interpretation of Trullo's Canon 2. For example, Canon 2 ends with, "But should any one be convicted of innovating upon, or attempting to overturn, any of the afore-mentioned canons, he shall be subject to receive the penalty which that canon imposes, and to be cured by it of his transgression."
The implication could be that introducing additional "canons" of scripture or books of scripture could be "innovating" on the canons.
SOURCE:
Canon 2, Trullo, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3814.htm
Upvote
0
My guess is that what happened was that:
Codex Alexandrianus included 4 Macc., then the Greek Church used the Alexandrian Codex as its template for printing Bibles, then the Georgian Church used the Greek Bibles as their own template. Meanwhile, neither the Greek Church nor the Georgian Church (I am guessing) ever made a formal decision that 4 Macc. was "canon." And nowadays the Greek Church puts 4 Macc. in an appendix and the Georgian Church's Bibles (it seems) today mark everything in the OT outside the OT protocanon as "noncanonical".
In the Russian tradition there was something similar happening. The Vulgate included 4 Esdras, even though the Catholic Church never declared it Canon. Jerome who made the Vulgate considered it apocryphal and Trent formally decided it to be apocryphal. But the RC Church kept printing it in their Bibles. Then the Russian Church used the Vulgate as a key source, thus picking up 4 Esdras from that and renaming it 3 Esdras, without ever formally declaring it canon either, I take it based on what I've read. Nowadays, 3 Esdras/4 Esdras is called noncanonical in the Russian mid 20th century Bibles, but so is everything else in the OT outside of the Protocanon.
Codex Alexandrianus included 4 Macc., then the Greek Church used the Alexandrian Codex as its template for printing Bibles, then the Georgian Church used the Greek Bibles as their own template. Meanwhile, neither the Greek Church nor the Georgian Church (I am guessing) ever made a formal decision that 4 Macc. was "canon." And nowadays the Greek Church puts 4 Macc. in an appendix and the Georgian Church's Bibles (it seems) today mark everything in the OT outside the OT protocanon as "noncanonical".
In the Russian tradition there was something similar happening. The Vulgate included 4 Esdras, even though the Catholic Church never declared it Canon. Jerome who made the Vulgate considered it apocryphal and Trent formally decided it to be apocryphal. But the RC Church kept printing it in their Bibles. Then the Russian Church used the Vulgate as a key source, thus picking up 4 Esdras from that and renaming it 3 Esdras, without ever formally declaring it canon either, I take it based on what I've read. Nowadays, 3 Esdras/4 Esdras is called noncanonical in the Russian mid 20th century Bibles, but so is everything else in the OT outside of the Protocanon.
Upvote
0
buzuxi02
Veteran
Obviously there is no open canon in Orthodoxy. If some ancient scroll is discovered today it would never be included in an Orthodox bible tomorrow.
The books of the Orthodox scripture are those found in the Septuagint along with the deuterocanonicals that were respected and popular by the Greek speaking Jews of that area (even though later they fell out of favor with the Jews as did the whole lxx).
Likewise the lists confirmed by Trullo were all the books found in the earliest Alexandrian texts (Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, Sinaiticus).
The word "Canon" did not seem to have the same meaning to all. In the east most Fathers used it as a term of official books sanctioned to be read at liturgy, while there are non-canonical scripture as well. These second rank of books are still scripture and are "worthy to be read".
St Athanasius explains:
..."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... 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....
Now there's a grey area on some of these books as many were counted as extensions to the already existing books and were indeed read in church, etc. There is a tradition that the number of canonical OT books correspond to the number of letters in the Hebrew bible so it's limited to 22 books. Whether Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius or Gregory Nazianzen the list of canonical OT books were always capped at 22. This means a bunch of deuterocanonicals are simply allotted within the 22 books.
Likewise all three of these Fathers' recognized a second tier of books for BOTH the old testament and new testament. St. Cyril of Jerusalem in his lectures after listing the canonical books and dismissing altogether apocryphal and gnostic texts taught, ... "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....."
This is less apparent with St. Gregory Nazianzen as he concludes his list of books as saying "any others are not genuine". But he himself quotes from Revelation and expects his listeners to know between books read in liturgy, books viewed as extensions to canonical books, spurious writings and so on.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Typically, it looks like when the Eastern fathers list the "22" books, although they sometimes include multiple books as one "book" like you mentioned, they include few if any of the Deuterocanonical books among those books.
This could be worth a separate thread, but besides the issue of 4 Macc., there is a bit of an odd divergence that I am finding. On one hand, the most reasonable, plain interpretation of Trullo, Canon 2, seems to me to be that the Council Fathers meant to list the canonical Biblical books inclusively. I say this because they accepted multiple differing Bible canon lists (eg. Canons of the Apostles has 1-3 Macc.) in Trullo's Canon 2. If Abe accepts 2 books, Bob accepts 2 other books, and Chris says that he accepts both Abe's and Bob's lists of books, the normal implication is that Chris accepts all 4 of their books. This is analogous to how I take an inclusive reading of Trullo Canon 2, so that 1-3 Macc. would belong in the canon.
It would seem therefore that when the bishops met at Trullo, they had a permissive attitude about the fact that important orthodox Christian councils in the East and West (eg. Carthage) had endorsed rather different canon lists. It sounds to me as if the Council Fathers were in effect saying that both the Eastern and Western local councils' Biblical canon lists were fine. And the end result of making an Ecumenical Canon (eg. Canon 2 of Trullo) that affirms all these canon lists seems to me to be naturally that the Council in effect accepted all those canon lists' accepted canonical books as "canonical".
On the other hand, Prof. Yungerov listed medieval Eastern Christian commentaries on Trullo Canon 2, and they agreed with the traditional Eastern view that the canon was limited to the Protocanon. Granted, these commentaries, such as Zonoras', were from later centuries. (Проф. П.А. Юнгеров "Введение в Ветхий Завет") But even when St. John Damascene listed the Biblical canon, about 63 years after Trullo was held, he generally stuck to the Protocanon, plus the Additions to Daniel. And the Russian tradition seems to follow this tradition about the limits of the canon, and in common church parlance, it seems to refer to the Deuterocanon as "noncanonical."
Meanwhile, the pre-Schism and post-schism West continued to hold to a rather longer canon, ie. treating their Deuterocanon as canon, both before and after Trullo. Then in the period of the West's Reformation and Counter-Reformation, the Greek Tradition seemed to come to endorse the view that the Deuterocanon was canonical. An example of this endorsement of the Deuterocanon shows up in the 17th century Jerusalem Council of Dositheus' declaration to that effect. This seems to be the current Greek Tradition's view to this day.
A quick scan of OCA materials makes it look to me that the OCA materials tend to accept the view of the Local Council of Dositheus that the Deuterocanon is part of the Bibical canon, although I found at least one noteworthy counter-example. My guess is that the Orthodox Study Bible follows the OCA's main view and that of what seems to me to be the current Greek tradition on this question.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
buzuxi02
Veteran
From what I see the book of Baruch is the one always listed as one of the canonical books by the eastern fathers, meaning it's not deuterocanonical in anyway. I believe in the west it's an extension of Jeremiah.
I agree. We also see in John of Damascus Exposition of the faith that the list of scriptures he lists the canons of the holy apostles as scripture (bk4 ch17). Undoubtedly then canon 85 of the Holy Apostles gives us a list of scriptures including deuterocanonical (acknowledges 3 books of Maccabees) ot books and nt books as well.
Upvote
0
See my List in Message #22 above. Most Eastern Fathers in that table are not including it as canonical, although I recall seeing Baruch listed by some of them myself as canonical. Book of Baruch was presented as written by Baruch, so it seems that it would tend to not be included in the Book of Jeremiah.
Can you please clarify your sentence in bold above?
Well, for better or worse, that is not necessarily what St John Damascene concludes if he endorses any lists of canonical books that include the Deuterocanon. I mean that just because Apostolic Canon 85 includes Maccabees doesn't mean that he does.
One reason that I say this is because Prof. Yungerov writes about St John Damascene:
That is, he seems to be strictly limiting himself to a narrow view of the canon that doesn't include the Deuterocanon.
Second, although he doesn't specify here whether he includes Maccabees, it seems that other Eastern fathers who cited Trullo's similarly-cited canon lists as authorities did not consider the Deuterocanon as canon, despite my own read of Trullo Canon 2 to the contrary.
For example, the commentator Aristin, interprets the issue this way, as Yungerov explains:
Проф. П.А. Юнгеров "Введение в Ветхий Завет"
In other words, the commentator Aristin interprets Canon 85 of the Apostles as if Canon 85 means that some of the books that in your and my view Canon 85 lists as canonical (eg. 1-3 Macc.) are noncanonical books "to be read".
Yungerov notes that multiple commentators on Trullo Canon 2 in the East cite Laodicea, etc. as the source for their narrow canonical list and don't mention Carthage, even though the latter is mentioned in Trullo Canon 2. Yungerov concludes these commentators interpret Laodicea, etc. to be the "governing"/"ruling" sources in Trullo Canon 2 and that they don't see Carthage as "governing."
My point is that even if St John Damascene cited Apostolic Canon 85 as authoritative or correct in its listing of the Bible canon, it doesn't necessarily follow that he follows it as dictating 1-3 Macc. as canonical for the Church.
Upvote
0
The Ecumenical Councils would be the de facto written determining authority on the Bible's contents and book list. On one hand, I think that Orthodox are not necessarily really pharisaical and dogmatic about interpreting and holding to the details of the Ecumenical Councils' canons. I can think of some debates among even pretty traditional EOs on holding to certain Ecumenical canons. But typically when there are some debates that come up, the EOs have pretty strong and specific practical or other reasons on why they would not implement those particular canons. So I guess that EOs are not necessarily locked into obeying Canon 2 even if it directs us in reality to accept the Deuterocanon as canon. And I think that the Eastern fathers did give decent reasons on why we might stick with just the Protocanon as the OT canon, and their authority itself is important.
But still, I think that it should be a very strong authority on this question, whereas the Greek tradition before the Reformation seems to have been trying too hard to avoid noticing and following the most reasonable interpretation of the canon. And since the Reformation, the Greek tradition on this issue has de facto flipped to accepting the Deuterocanon, AFAIK.
Based on my reading of materials in Russian, the current Russian writers seem to notice that the Trullo Canon 2 is at least conflicted or ambiguous on the issue by endorsing both Laodicea and Carthage. But the traditional Eastern way of addressing this conflict has seemingly been to simply avoid noticing the conflict and to instead simply treat Laodicea and the other "narrow-canon" lists as "governing" the meaning of Trullo Canon 2.
Upvote
0
buzuxi02
Veteran
Canon 2 of Trullo canonized several epistles and whichever books those epistles mentioned are scripture. Reason why we are having difficulty is in how the early Greek father's used the term "canonical" compared with the west.
If you want to see a conflicting list read the Stichometery of Nicephoros. Written in 850 A D. it lists the OT deuteros in a "dubious" category and for the NT it lists Revelation along with the other "end times" apocryphal books in the same "dubious" category,. Other apostolic writings such as Didache and Clement listed as flat out apocryphal etc.
In Orthodoxy there exists a second tier of (non canonical= deuterocanonical) scripture for both old and new testaments. Revelation is not the last book of the NT, but the first book of the Orthodox New testament deuteros. (As can be seen in the ancient codexes where the other books followed it.)
When the early Greek father's use the term "canonical", I do not see them using it as an adjective or title for all of scripture. I see them using it as a term for the first tier of books labeled so because they were read in church. If the book ceases to be read in church it automatically falls to the second tier and no longer has the title of a 'canonical book'.. St Gregory Nazianzen recognizes Revelation as scripture but omits it from his canonical list and makes clear there are no other canonical books. Cyril of Jerusalem says if it's not one of the books read in church (which he previously listed) to place it in the second tier of books and the third tier are the apocryphal books which are frauds and to never read.
Likewise Athanasius in his 39th epistle says besides canonical scripture there are others worthy to be read sanctioned by the church and goes on to list them. Today we simply use the term canonical for all the approved books found in a modern bible that may also contain the OT deuteros.
St John of Damascus on his exposition of the faith dedicates chapter 17 to scripture finally gives the list of books. He gives a last section of OT books he refered to as the "Panaretos" (all virtuous) but said those were not included in the ark (they were not liturgically read) he only mentions one or two of them. He goes on to write:
The New Testament contains four gospels, that according to Matthew, that according to Mark, that according to Luke, that according to John: the Acts of the Holy Apostles by Luke the Evangelist: seven catholic epistles, viz. one of James, two of Peter, three of John, one of Jude: fourteen letters of the Apostle Paul: the Revelation of John the Evangelist: the Canons of the holy apostles , by Clement.
Scroll to chapter 17 interesting stuff;
CHURCH FATHERS: An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book IV (John of Damascus)
If you want to see a conflicting list read the Stichometery of Nicephoros. Written in 850 A D. it lists the OT deuteros in a "dubious" category and for the NT it lists Revelation along with the other "end times" apocryphal books in the same "dubious" category,. Other apostolic writings such as Didache and Clement listed as flat out apocryphal etc.
In Orthodoxy there exists a second tier of (non canonical= deuterocanonical) scripture for both old and new testaments. Revelation is not the last book of the NT, but the first book of the Orthodox New testament deuteros. (As can be seen in the ancient codexes where the other books followed it.)
When the early Greek father's use the term "canonical", I do not see them using it as an adjective or title for all of scripture. I see them using it as a term for the first tier of books labeled so because they were read in church. If the book ceases to be read in church it automatically falls to the second tier and no longer has the title of a 'canonical book'.. St Gregory Nazianzen recognizes Revelation as scripture but omits it from his canonical list and makes clear there are no other canonical books. Cyril of Jerusalem says if it's not one of the books read in church (which he previously listed) to place it in the second tier of books and the third tier are the apocryphal books which are frauds and to never read.
Likewise Athanasius in his 39th epistle says besides canonical scripture there are others worthy to be read sanctioned by the church and goes on to list them. Today we simply use the term canonical for all the approved books found in a modern bible that may also contain the OT deuteros.
St John of Damascus on his exposition of the faith dedicates chapter 17 to scripture finally gives the list of books. He gives a last section of OT books he refered to as the "Panaretos" (all virtuous) but said those were not included in the ark (they were not liturgically read) he only mentions one or two of them. He goes on to write:
The New Testament contains four gospels, that according to Matthew, that according to Mark, that according to Luke, that according to John: the Acts of the Holy Apostles by Luke the Evangelist: seven catholic epistles, viz. one of James, two of Peter, three of John, one of Jude: fourteen letters of the Apostle Paul: the Revelation of John the Evangelist: the Canons of the holy apostles , by Clement.
Scroll to chapter 17 interesting stuff;
CHURCH FATHERS: An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book IV (John of Damascus)
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Did Trullo Canon 2's epistles/sources include any "NT" books like Barnabas that are outside our currently used "NT canon"? I don't recall reading any such "NT noncanonical" books.
I am hesitant in calling Revelation "NT Deutero", despite it having spotty acceptance in the patristic era. Typically it is not called NT "Deutero", and it is only the OT that are in common parlance called OT Deutero. I would be interested in a chart of the Fathers who did vs did not accept John's Revelation as canon. This Anabaptist Wiki article makes it sound like it was commonly accepted as scriptural canon in the patristic era:
Canonicity and Acceptance of Revelation (in Revelation) - Anabaptistwiki
I am also hesitant to say that noncanonical scripture = Deutero, strictly speaking.
Trullo Canon 2's lists of canon don't include 4 Macc or 4 Esdras AFAIK, so I would not consider them Deuterocanonical. They are noncanonical per Trullo Canon 2 clearly, yet are put in EO Bibles anyway as "noncanonical." I think of Deuterocanonical in Orthodoxy as being - (A) the books of Trullo Canon 2 and (B) a few LXX additions to known books - that are not in the Protestant/Rabbinical OT Bible. Technically in Catholicism AFAIK Deuterocanon is the part of the Catholic OT Canon like 1 Macc that was accepted at Trent but not in the Protocanon.
You wrote:
I have heard this explanation of "canon" as a term, and the Orthodox Russian Encyclopedia notes in this context that some "Noncanonical" (in Russian parlance) books like Wisdom of Solomon are read as part of the services of the Russian Tradition's "canon" of service.
Yet... I have also heard in patristic contexts of Church fathers describing some of this same category of "noncanonical" books that they specifically put outside their canon as also what read for catechumens. Prof Yungerov writes:
Maybe one difference could be that in the patristic time these Deutero OT books might have been not read as part of the canon of services. I also heard in one EO priest's lecture supposedly that "noncanonical" books are not "inspired", but I have a little trouble with this as to the dividing line between a holy book that is inspired and one that isn't, because it seems that God could be said to "inspire" holy ancient people to write holy works that are not in the Protocanon, just as certain church fathers could be "inspired" to write certain texts or say certain holy things.
Well, 4 Esdras and 4 Macc are in modern Bibles like OSB, but I would imagine that they are not called canonical by the OSB's authors. At least they shouldn't IMO be since they weren't approved by anything in Trullo Canon 2.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
buzuxi02
Veteran
In the east only St. Athanasius included it. He placed 1Clement and Hermas in the worthy to be read tier. . Cyril of Jerusalem, Canon 60 of Laodicea, and St Gregory Nazianzen all rejected Revelation. St Amphilocios of Iconium lists it, but with the disclaimer that most consider it spurious.
Canon 2 accepts the canons of the Holy Apostles of which Canon 85 includes the 2 letters of Clement and the Constitutions. Of the latter we have reclaimed the Didascalia through the use of the Didache.
Finally the Codex Sinaiticus has Revelation, epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas as it's final three books.
But the thing is the Orthodox Church does not read from the book of Revelation so for all intents and purposes it's not canonical.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I recall that in the Russian Tradition, Revelation is read from at least once. I forget exactly when.
The Kondakion for Sunday of the Last Judgment seems to allude to it too:
And the river of fire shall flow before Your judgment seat;
The books shall be opened and the hidden things disclosed!
Fr. Stephen De Young (Antiochian) writes:
"The strongest evidence that the book of Revelation is not canonical in the Orthodox Church is that it is not publicly read in the Orthodox Church. The only exceptions to this are some Alexandrian churches and the monastery on the Isle of Patmos itself."
Upvote
0
"Clement of Alexandria (Who Is the Rich Man Who Shall Be Saved? 42; Miscellanies 6.106-7), and Origen (Commentary on John 5.3) accept Revelation as scripture."
Canonicity and Acceptance of Revelation (in Revelation) - Anabaptistwiki
"John of Damascus (about AD 730) in his work An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith (Book IV:7)[33] listed "the Revelation of John the Evangelist" as a canonical book."
Book of Revelation - Wikipedia
This would put 1-2 Clement and the Constitutions in the hypothetical "NT Deutero" pile, but the Ecumenical Councils more expressly take a skeptical or equivocal view of the Constitutions and perhaps the Canons of the Holy Apostles, as I recall.
Upvote
0
Russian Wikipedia's article on John's Apocalypse/Revelation says that the term "noncanonical" for the Deuterocanon only began in the Russian tradition starting in 1847:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
buzuxi02
Veteran
I only know of the Copts who read it once a year. I think during holy week. Patmos maybe read but the circumstances of Patmos is different where they also hold services for the anniversary of it's writing every few decades.
Only the Constitutions we're rejected because certain things were interpolated by heretics. Out of those Constitutions we have been able to restore an earlier version of the Didascalia of the Apostles ( first 6 chapters) in the Didache. Canon 2 of Trullo reads:
"IT has also seemed good to this holy Council, that the eighty-five canons, received and ratified by the holy and blessed Fathers before us, and also handed down to us in the name of the holy and glorious Apostles should from this time forth remain firm and unshaken for the cure of souls and the healing of disorders. And in these canons we are bidden to receive the Constitutions of the Holy Apostles [written] by Clement. But formerly through the agency of those who erred from the faith certain adulterous matter was introduced, clean contrary to piety, for the polluting of the Church, which obscures the elegance and beauty of the divine decrees in their present form. We therefore reject these Constitutions so as the better to make sure of the edification and security of the most Christian flock; by no means admitting the offspring of heretical error, and cleaving to the pure and perfect doctrine of the Apostles. But we set our seal likewise upon all the other holy canons set forth by our holy and blessed Fathers, that is......
Upvote
0
Similar threads
