Is 4 Maccabees part of the Deuterocanon in the Georgian Church?

[ArmyMatt]

I recall that in the Russian Tradition, Revelation is read from at least once. I forget exactly when.

it’s to be read (with the rest of the entire NT) between Vespers and Matins from Pascha to Pentecost.

 

[rakovsky]

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......

This is pretty helpful when it comes to the treatment of the Apostolic Constitutions.
It still leaves the issue of 1-2 Clement.
If Trullo Canon 2 is the basis for putting the Deuterocanon into the NT Canon, then why wouldn't Trullo Canon 2 in effect also put 1-2 Clement into the NT canon, based on Apostolic Canon 85?

The (A) Greek Tradition and the (B) Russian and older Greek Traditions seem to be somewhat divided on whether the Deuterocanon is "canonical", whereas there seems to be a longstanding EO and RC consensus that 1-2 Clement is not in the NT canon. So is the answer to my question above that the consensus is what makes the difference, not Trullo Canon 2?

 

[buzuxi02]

For me it's rather simple, if any epistle or canon or list were ratified by Canon 2 of Trullo, I consider them scripture. Now we know sometimes the Greeks refer to them with the fancy word of anagignoskomena books. In the early church those that had doubt of their authenticity sometimes called them antilegomena.
The closest word for Deuterocanonical is from Cyril of Jerusalem who said to put the rest of the books into the second tier (meaning first tier books are the canonical books he previously listed).
The following are the books not readily found in our modern shorter Canon bibles we use but were included in the various lists ratified at Trullo in Canon 2:

The African code of Carthage:
Baruch, Epistle of Jeremiah,
Tobit, Judith, Esther, 1&2 Esdras 1&2 Macabees.

Athanasius 39th Festal epistle:

Baruch, epistle of Jeremiah( counted in the canonical side)... 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.

Canon 60 of Laodicea:
Baruch and Epistle of Jeremiah.

Canon 85 of the Apostles:
1Esther, 1-3 Maccabees, Wisdom of Sirach, 1-2 Clement.

 

[buzuxi02]

Also I want to expand on what I previously said that many Church Fathers did not view the term "canonical books" as we do today.
It was a term for the first tier books. There has always been a gradation viewed by the chronological order given them
Here is Rufinus of Aquilea giving his list of books:
These are the books which the Fathers have comprised within the Canon, and from which they would have us deduce the proofs of our faith.

38. But it should be known that there are also other books which our fathers call not Canonical but Ecclesiastical: that is to say, Wisdom, called the Wisdom of Solomon, and another Wisdom, called the Wisdom of the Son of Syrach, which last-mentioned the Latins called by the general title Ecclesiasticus, designating not the author of the book, but the character of the writing. To the same class belong the Book of Tobit, and the Book of Judith, and the Books of the Maccabees. In the New Testament the little book which is called the Book of the Pastor of Hermas, [and that] which is called The Two Ways, or the Judgment of Peter; all of which they would have read in the Churches, but not appealed to for the confirmation of doctrine. The other writings they have named Apocrypha. These they would not have read in the Churches. (Ch 37-38)
CHURCH FATHERS: Commentary on the Apostles' Creed (Rufinus)

And this article on St. Gregory Nazianzen:

Gregory of Nazianzus and Canon of Old Testament

 

[rakovsky]

For me it's rather simple, if any epistle or canon or list were ratified by Canon 2 of Trullo, I consider them scripture.
The African code of Carthage: Baruch, Epistle of Jeremiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, 1&2 Esdras 1&2 Macabees.
Canon 85 of the Apostles: 1Esther, 1-3 Maccabees, Wisdom of Sirach, 1-2 Clement.

Doesn't that mean that 1-2 Clement is canonical scripture?

When Carthage refers to 2 Esdras, does it mean "Vulgate 4 Esdras"/ "KJV 2 Esdras"? I am guessing not.

 

[buzuxi02]

Doesn't that mean that 1-2 Clement is canonical scripture?

When Carthage refers to 2 Esdras, does it mean "Vulgate 4 Esdras"/ "KJV 2 Esdras"? I am guessing not.

Yes. These lists were compiled in times and local areas where they may have been read officially. There's a constant theme that canonical books are read officially while the others are sanctioned to be read privately..
Carthage seems to be aware of a ranking of scripture as well:
"It was also determined that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in the Church under the title of divine Scriptures....

As far as the Carthage list on Esdras, I stand corrected. The two books of Esdras are the standard canonical Ezra and Nehemiah. Its unusual as the list places them towards smack dab in the middle of the deuteros( though not recognized as such by this Canon):

The Third Council of Carthage on the Canon of Scripture

 

[rakovsky]

As far as the Carthage list on Esdras, I stand corrected. The two books of Esdras are the standard canonical Ezra and Nehemiah. Its unusual as the list places them towards smack dab in the middle of the deuteros( though not recognized as such by this Canon):

The Third Council of Carthage on the Canon of Scripture

This is alittle confusing for me, because there is a whole series of books named Esdras/Ezra, and they are numbered differently depending on which Church uses it. Here is a table:
Esdras - Wikipedia

Clementine Vulgate 1 Esdras + 2 Esdras = KJV Ezra + Nehemiah = Greek B Esdras (ie. "II Esdras")= Slavic 1 Esdras + Nehemiah

Clementine Vulgate 3 Esdras = Slavic 2 Esdras = Greek Aʹ Esdras (ie. "I Esdras") = KJV 1 Esdras. This book is Deuterocanonical in the Orthodox tradition, and not in the RC or Protestant canon. Wikipedia points to Church Fathers who considered it canon:

In the Greek canon, and in all surviving early Greek pandect bibles, 1 Esdras and Ezra–Nehemiah are termed Esdras A and Esdras B respectively. For Ambrose 1 Esdras was the 'first book of Esdras', Ezra–Nehemiah was the 'second book of Esdras', and 2 Esdras was the 'third book of Esdras'.[3] According to Pierre-Maurice Bogaert when the Council of Carthage (397) and Synod of Hippo (393), under the influence of Augustine of Hippo, determined that only 'two books of Ezra' were to be considered canonical, it was Ezra–Nehemiah and 1 Esdras which were stated as being included in scripture, while 2 Esdras was being excluded.

ENTRY ON "ESDRAS" IN WIKIPEDIA

So it sounds like Carthage is accepting Greek "I Esdras"/Vulgate 3 Esdras/Slavic 2 Esdras as Canon.

Clementine Vulgate 4 Esdras = Slavic 3 Esdras = KJV 2 Esdras. I believe that this is considered noncanonical by all Churches and not one of the Trullo "Deutero" books. It is in no Greek Bibles because the Greek text is lost.

 

[buzuxi02]

So it sounds like Carthage is accepting Greek "I Esdras"/Vulgate 3 Esdras/Slavic 2 Esdras as Canon.

This would make sense. I originally thought it was the two deutero books because it's placement after Judith and Tobit and Esther and right before the 2 Maccabee books. Still a bit odd they didn't list them separately but certainly seems to make the best sense.

 

[rakovsky]

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......

Since Canon 2 went out of its way to exclude the Apostolic Constitutions, the implication seems to be that other works like 1-2 Clement and 1-3 Macc. accepted in the Apostolic Canons are not excluded. Thus in turn, the next implication seems to be that the authors of Canon 2 intended the lists of books to be read inclusively. Otherwise, per a narrow reading of Canon 2, one would not think to include the Apostolic Const., even without the express exclusion that Canon 2 imposed.

 

[buzuxi02]

Since Canon 2 went out of its way to exclude the Apostolic Constitutions, the implication seems to be that other works like 1-2 Clement and 1-3 Macc. accepted in the Apostolic Canons are not excluded. Thus in turn, the next implication seems to be that the authors of Canon 2 intended the lists of books to be read inclusively. Otherwise, per a narrow reading of Canon 2, one would not think to include the Apostolic Const., even without the express exclusion that Canon 2 imposed.

Can you rephrase the above?
The apostolic constitutions are still read and used as a historical source, for example it's quoted extensively in modern circles on what the role of deaconess was, etc. It also has one of the earliest references to the "three marriage limit" etc .
St. Athanasius included the Didascalia of the Apostles under the "worthy to be read" books which compromises a bunch of chapters of the Constitutions. Canon 2 excludes it since heretics may have tainted it, but on the other hand the Didascalia is just an expanded version of the earlier Didache, having relied on it. So I even include the Didache as a NT deutero.

 

[rakovsky]

Can you rephrase the above?

Normally, in interpreting a document like the US Constitution, we go by the plain words. But in the case of Canon 2, there is a little problem of whether Canon 2 should be interpreted inclusively (Canon = Protocanon + Deuterocanon) to allow books like Judith or exclusively (Canon = Protocanon).

In cases of ambiguity, we normally want to read commentators, particularly those living close in time or place to the document's writing. But we don't have any commentaries that are close in time. Zonaras wrote his commentary on Trullo over 300 years after it was written.

So in my last message, I was trying to analyze Trullo Canon 2 to see if there were any clues in terms of whether Trullo's authors intended an inclusive or exclusive reading of Canon 2. So I reasoned this way: If the authors expected their readers to take an exclusive reading of Trullo Canon 2 and limit the Biblical Canon to the Protocanon, then there would be no point in the authors in specifically telling their readers to exclude the Apostolic Constitutions from the Canon of the Bible. This is because the APostolic Constitutions are not in the Protocanon. And the authors did single the Constitutions out to tell their readers to exclude it from the Biblical Canon.

That is, in the following passage, first, the authors of Trullo Canon 2 specifically approve the 85 Apostolic Canons. The 85 Apostolic Canons seemingly approve 1-3 Macc., 1-2 Clement, and the Apostolic Constitutions as part of the Bible Canon. Next, the authors of Trullo Canon 2 specifically "reject" the Apostolic Constitutions, but say nothing against 1-3 Macc or 1-2 Clement. The "implication by silence" in this case seems to be that the authors agree with the Apostolic Canons that 1-3 Macc. and 1-2 Clement are part of the Biblical Canon. This is because if the authors rejected 1-3 Macc. and 1-2 Clement like they rejected the Constitutions, then they would tend to have mentioned this rejection, just like they did for the Constitutions. If they expected their readers to take an exclusive, narrow interpretation of the Biblical Canon, then there would be less reason for these authors to specify that they rejected the Constitution, because a narrow reader of Canon 2 would avoid placing 1-3 Macc and 1-2 Clement into the Canon:

Trullo Canon 2
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.

Of course, the authors of Trullo Canon 2 could have meant that they rejected the Constitutions as heretical, whereas the authors of Trullo Canon 2 might not state at the same time that they consider 1-3 Macc and 1-2 Clement as outside the canon because these are two somewhat different issues: (A) Considering a document (the Constitutions) heretical and (B) rejecting an orthodox document (eg. 1-2 Clement) from the Biblical Canon. That is, theoretically, the authors of Trullo could specifically note that they reject the Constitutions as heretical, but keep silent on the issue of 1-3 Macc and 1-2 Clement, and this silence does not itself prove their stance on whether the latter sets of books are canon or not for the Bible.