Is the book of Revelation canonical?

[Not David]

I heard someone said Revelation is not canonical and it is at the same level of the letters of St. Clement.

However that book is in the Bible or not everything in the Bible is canonical?

 

[ArmyMatt]

yes, it is canonical

 

[alsughasoughaiuyfygh]

.

 

[Not David]

yes, it is canonical

Deuterocanonical?

 

[buzuxi02]

You probably heard me say that. It's not canonical in the sense it's not read in liturgy.
In the west canonical books are any scripture, in the east a distinction was made between officially read books in liturgy and those worthy of being read apart from liturgy.
St. Cyril of Jerusalem in his catechetical lectures explains:
Then of the New Testament there are the four Gospels only, for the rest have false titles and are mischievous. The Manichæans 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......" Lecture 4:36

 

[ArmyMatt]

Deuterocanonical?

it's interesting I found out that while the book of Revelation is not to be read during the Liturgy, it is to be read between Vespers and Matins at a Vigil between Pascha and Pentecost.

during that time of the year, if you do the full order every day, you are to read the entire NT, to include Revelation.

 

[public hermit]

Wasn't it considered spurious by a number of early church fathers?

 

[Protomartyr Alban]

Deuterocanonical?

No, just canonical. This language of "Deuterocanonical" didn't exist until the Reformation. The Latins invented the term instead of the Protestant "Apocrypha" to speak of the specific books the Protestants rejected, but it has no bearing on their canonical status.

You probably heard me say that. It's not canonical in the sense it's not read in liturgy.
In the west canonical books are any scripture, in the east a distinction was made between officially read books in liturgy and those worthy of being read apart from liturgy.
St. Cyril of Jerusalem in his catechetical lectures explains:
Then of the New Testament there are the four Gospels only, for the rest have false titles and are mischievous. The Manichæans 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......" Lecture 4:36

In 367 St Athanasios included all of this as well as Revelation. There were differing opinions, but eventually the 27 books were all standardised and accepted as scripture.

Even if a book is not scripture (which Revelation is), it can still be entirely trustworthy, like the works of St John Chrysostom, the Didache, etc.

 

[All4Christ]

You probably heard me say that. It's not canonical in the sense it's not read in liturgy.
In the west canonical books are any scripture, in the east a distinction was made between officially read books in liturgy and those worthy of being read apart from liturgy.
St. Cyril of Jerusalem in his catechetical lectures explains:
Then of the New Testament there are the four Gospels only, for the rest have false titles and are mischievous. The Manichæans 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......" Lecture 4:36

He also had a different canon of the Old Testament as well.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Wasn't it considered spurious by a number of early church fathers?

yes, but so was Hebrews

 

[Barney2.0]

Wasn't it considered spurious by a number of early church fathers?

It’s apostolic authorship was held in question by a few, it’s Orthodoxy however wasn’t doubted, it would be incorrect to say it was held as a forgery by the early Church Fathers otherwise it would have never made it into the canon in the first place, rather it was held in disputation whether it was written by John the Apostle due to it being written in a late period towards the end of the Apostle’s life, however you may still find early Church Fathers such as Papias and Irenaeus among the author as John the Apostle. It’s disputed authorship however with held it along with the book of Hebrews and 2 Peter from being included in the Biblical canon at the time. This also demonstrates the great care the early Church held the scriptures with and carefully examined all letters attributed to the Apostles before considering their inclusion into the Biblical canon putting to rest of any idea of massive corruptions or changes creeping during the formation of the Biblical canon and the New Testament more specifically.

 

[AMM]

yes, but so was Hebrews

And 2 Peter and James

 

[buzuxi02]

In 367 St Athanasios included all of this as well as Revelation. There were differing opinions, but eventually the 27 books were all standardised and accepted as scripture.

St. Athanasios says to read only the canonical books in Liturgy which he included Revelation, but since we do not read it in Liturgy it falls under the second tier books. Athanasios enumerates the scriptures not read in liturgy which are included in the bible. Here is St. Athanasios 39th epistle explaining:

, ...’ And He reproved the Jews, saying, ‘Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of Me’ 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...

Canons 59&60 of Laodicea:

No psalms composed by private individuals nor any uncanonical books may be read in the church, but only the Canonical Books of the Old and New Testaments.

....And these are the books of the New Testament: Four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; The Acts of the Apostles; Seven Catholic Epistles, to wit, one of James, two of Peter, three of John, one of Jude; Fourteen Epistles of Paul, one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Galatians, one to the Ephesians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Hebrews, two to Timothy, one to Titus, and one to Philemon.

 

[buzuxi02]

Here is a more exhaustive list of the Orthodox biblical canon (caution the 8 books of clement were discarded by the council at Trullo as having been adulterated, the rest of the canon still stands)

Canon LXXXV.
Let the following books be counted venerable and sacred by all of you, both clergy and Laity. Of the Old Testament, five books of Moses, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; of Joshua the Son of Nun, one; of the Judges, one; of Ruth, one; of the Kings, four; of the Chronicles of the book of the days, two; of Ezra, two; of Esther, one; [some texts read: of Judith, one;] of the Maccabees, three; of Job, one; of the Psalter, one; of Solomon, three, viz.: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs; of the Prophets, twelve; of Isaiah, one; of Jeremiah, one; of Ezekiel, one; of Daniel, one. But besides these you are recommended to teach your young persons the Wisdom of the very learned Sirach. Our own books, that is, those of the New Testament, are: the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; fourteen Epistles of Paul; two Epistles of Peter; three of John; one of James, and one of Jude. Two Epistles of Clement, and the Constitutions of me Clement, addressed to you Bishops, in eight books, which are not to be published to all on account of the mystical things in them. And the Acts of us the Apostles.

 

[Not David]

Here is a more exhaustive list of the Orthodox biblical canon (caution the 8 books of clement were discarded by the council at Trullo as having been adulterated, the rest of the canon still stands)

Canon LXXXV.
Let the following books be counted venerable and sacred by all of you, both clergy and Laity. Of the Old Testament, five books of Moses, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; of Joshua the Son of Nun, one; of the Judges, one; of Ruth, one; of the Kings, four; of the Chronicles of the book of the days, two; of Ezra, two; of Esther, one; [some texts read: of Judith, one;] of the Maccabees, three; of Job, one; of the Psalter, one; of Solomon, three, viz.: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs; of the Prophets, twelve; of Isaiah, one; of Jeremiah, one; of Ezekiel, one; of Daniel, one. But besides these you are recommended to teach your young persons the Wisdom of the very learned Sirach. Our own books, that is, those of the New Testament, are: the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; fourteen Epistles of Paul; two Epistles of Peter; three of John; one of James, and one of Jude. Two Epistles of Clement, and the Constitutions of me Clement, addressed to you Bishops, in eight books, which are not to be published to all on account of the mystical things in them. And the Acts of us the Apostles.

If the canon is about being read in the Liturgy, most of the O.T. fails. I mean, I don't think anyone reads Joshua, 2 Chronicles or Judith

 

[buzuxi02]

If the canon is about being read in the Liturgy, most of the O.T. fails. I mean, I don't think anyone reads Joshua, 2 Chronicles or Judith

They are quoted in hymns, others are read but are given as longer extensions of the canonical books etc.
The thing is Orthodox scriptures are different from the standard modern bible as canon 2 of Trullo has endorsed numerous lists.
For example the early Fathers included Baruch as canon of scripture, yet its not found in our standard bibles only those that contain deutero canonical books . Both letters of Clement are listed as scripture by canon 150 of the Holy Apostles and by St. John of Damascus. Athanasios lists the Shepherd of Hermas and Didache etc. The ancient biblical manuscripts did include all these (the codexes like vaticanus didnt end with Revelation). Revelation was not really the last book of the NT but more like the first book of NT books which were worthy to be read.
St. Gregory Nazianzen is one example. In his list of canonical books he is adamant that Jude is the final canonical book of the NT and anything else is not genuine. Yet he quotes from Revelation.

 

[HardHead]

There is a three-part discussion on The Apocalypse by Fr. Thomas Hopko in this link.

Fr. Thomas Hopko Lectures | Ancient Faith Ministries

The discussion is called "A Walk Through The Apocalypse".

He starts the discussion by talking about why the book was controversial, how it entered canon and then moves on from there. One of his main points is that understanding the book requires Orthodox practice and thinking especially relative to the liturgy. It's quite interesting.

I found the discussion to be useful. You may think that as well if you listen to it.

Hopko's lectures are a good source on things Orthodox in my opinion. I am certainly still learning from him even after his death.

 

[Euodius]

If the canon is about being read in the Liturgy, most of the O.T. fails. I mean, I don't think anyone reads Joshua, 2 Chronicles or Judith

Just because the canon is about being read in the liturgy, does not mean that all the books were read universally in the early Church. Some books were read here and other books there. Some books, obviously, were read everywhere. Some places had access to less books, some to more books. Further, there are different rules by which different readings are done. Monasteries can have more intensive readings than most places. Some monasteries do, or have done, all psalms every day, for example, but don't do much else.

You'll note that the West made much greater use of the Old Testament in parish liturgies than the east, but also used revelation. Even though they broke away, their use and their piety for the first millennia still has a a great and Spirit-filled effect on the whole of the Church. The Western Rite (although rightly controversial), still uses the old reading cycle of the Western Church - and I'm pretty sure you go through the entire Bible in the readings (minus the books unique to the Eastern Church.)

(Update: and the Old Testament makes a lot of sense as it was the Scriptures of the Original Christians. Certainly this was used during the transition of the Jews into Christianity before the exodus of the Christians to Antioch and before the writing of the New Testament.)

 

[Euodius]

Addendum: The Book of Revelation is used liturgically by the East during lent. It is not in the form of a reading, but it's contents are used in the make-up of some of the services.
The acceptance of the Book of Revelation came primarily from North Africa - Alexandria. But, St. Jerome and St. Andrew of Caesarea are responsible for releasing two commentaries (in both cases, they edited flawed commentaries that already existed) on the book which lead to it's universal acceptance.