Orthodoxy and Scripture

[Fineous_Reese]

g'day all,

i've been trying to study up on the Orthodox religion and read in one of the threads here that y'all don't see the scriptures as inerrant, is this true and if so why? (if there are threads on this already please point me to them, i'm still searching through the pages )

thanks muchly,
Fin

 

[Orthodox Andrew]

Here's three emails I have received from Priests after I asked them this question.

Dear Father,

Where does the Bible stand in Orthodox Tradition? Does the Church
teach
that the Bible is infallible? Or are some books in the Bible fallible
and
some infallible?

Thanks for your time,

Andrew

Dear Andrew,

Thank you for your enquiry.

YOU WRITE: Where does the Bible stand in Orthodox Tradition?
RESPONSE: The Bible is the foremost product of Holy Tradition, being
the
product of the Church, so to speak. Orthodox have always referred to
the
Septuagint with regard to the Old Testament; the New Testament as we
know it
today took on its final Canon in the 4th century, when the 27 books
found
therein were determined.

YOU WRITE: Does the Church teach that the Bible is infallible?
RESPONSE: The Bible is the inerrant, inspired word of God.

YOU WRITE: Or are some books in the Bible fallible and some
infallible?
RESPONSE: If by this you are asking whether the Orthodox accept the
so-called "apocrypha" as fully scriptural, the answer is yes, as these
books
and writings are found in the Septuagint. All books of the Bible stand
on
equal footing, so to speak, with none "more inspired" than others.

In Christ,
Father John Matusiak, OCA Communications Department

Greetings in the Lord! It all depends on what you mean as infallible! Do webelieve that the hand of God wrote the bible, no we donot. And we know that there are mistakes in it, inother words in Gospel there is one demoniac, and inanother there is two. In one gospel the thief repentson the cross, in the other there is no mention, and infact says that the two thieves deride Christ. We also know that it can be interpreted so manydifferent ways, as you see by those who use it to saythat to kill is ok, or homosexuality is ok, and somesay that Christ was gay. However, the ultimatemessage of the bible, its salvific message isinfallible. And the interpretation of the Orthodoxfathers, those holy men who truly lived a saintly lifetruly is the correct interpretation. I pray that this helps. In Christ, Fr. Theologos

Dear Andrew,
Thank you for your question. Unfortunately it does not have a simple answer. First we must look at the Bible's origins. The Bible was compiled by the Early Church as a result of the Council of Trent. Over 800 writings and sacred texts were examined by the Council before the 66 books that make up our present Bible were accepted as Canonical, meaning totally in keeping with the beliefs and Holy Tradition of the Church at that time. Simply put, the Church pre-dates the Bible. As a Church Council, we believe very strongly that the Holy Spirit guided those early Church Fathers in their decisions as to which writings to include in the Bible. Even so, a number of writings were considered probably Canonical but not absolute; these make up what the Roman Catholics call the Apocrapha. Some, but not all, of the books of the Apocrapha are used by the Orthodox Church in its services. Other texts, like the Gospel of Thomas, were rejected by the Early Church as non-canonical simply because the author, in this case the Apostle Thomas, takes a position the whole Church could not agree with. St. Thomas puts forth in his Gospel the idea that Virginity is superior to marriage in all cases. While accepting the truth of Thomas's historical accounts of the life of Christ and the Virgin Mary (which are very detailed), the Early Church could not accept his position subordinating marriage to Virginity, and thus, his Gospel was not included with the other four. Other Gospels were rejected for similar reasons; it is widely believed by scholars of early church writings that the Apostle Philip and Mary Magdalene wrote, or at least dictated, gospel accounts of their own, in which they claim that Jesus was married. The Church rejected these as well because, whether true or not, they gave support to the most serious heresy with which the Early Church had to contend, namely that Christ was a created being, the heresy of Arianism, rejected and anathamatised by the First Ecumenical Council.

Next is the question of translation and authorship. The Old Testament was written in Hebrew and Aramaic; the New Testament was mostly written in Greek, except for the Gospel of Matthew which was probably written originally in Aramaic as well. Most of the original Apostles did not know how to read or write; they were fishermen. Matthew was the exception from among the Twelve, being a Publican as he was. Peter's Gospel came to be known as the Gospel of Mark because John Mark accompanied Peter on his journeys and wrote down what Peter told him. Luke did the same thing with Paul plus he was one of the original Seventy. John dictated his Gospel to his Disciple when he was very old (probably close to age 120!) to help the Early Church combat the heresies of Gnosticism and the heresy that would later infect Arias, that Christ was not fully divine as the Father. Every translation of the Bible has introduced errors that occur naturally in the process of translation because some words or phrases do not have an exact equivalent in another language or have a different meaning or understanding in that language. This is especially true of translations from Aramaic, which, unlike Greek, is not a very precise language, being more spoken than written in the ancient world of the Hebrews.

Finally, the Orthodox Church teaches that, while the Bible is wholey Canonical and Divinely inspired, it is subject to misinterpretation if studied without the benefit of Holy Tradition and the teachings of the Fathers of the Church. The Bible in Orthodoxy cannot stand alone (sola Scriptura as Martin Luther believed). It is therefore considered infallible only when seen and interpreted in the light of the whole truth of the Church through the centuries. For example, think how much confusion surrounds the understanding of the Creation as recorded in the first chapter of Genesis. Yet no such confusion existed in the Church of the 5th Century because the Fathers of the Church, in particular, St. Basil the Great, taught that Genesis was to be interpreted and understood figuratively, not as a physical history of creation.

So, does the Orthodox Church accept the Bible as infallible? Yes - when interpreted properly in the light of Holy Tradition and the Fathers.
Are some books fallible? No, all are Canonical when properly interpreted; however some are meant as allegory (the Book of Job, the Apocalypse - Revelations, and the Song of Solomon), and some are meant to provide deep spriritual truths, not history.

Hope this helps,

Love and blessings,




Fr. Lawrence

​

Hope this helps.

 

[The Prokeimenon!]

We do believe The Bible is inerrant, as read within the context of Holy Tradition. The Bible is part of our Holy Tradition. There are many elements that make up our Faith as Orthodox Christians: Scripture, Iconography, Hymnography, Liturgy, etc. and all these make up a seamless whole. We don't try to seperate one from the others. When any of these are taken out of context, they become confusing and incomplete.

Scripture is the written word of God, as Hymns are the sung word of God, and Icons are the painted word of God. We come together in Worship at Liturgy, where we read the Scriptures, sing the Hymns, gaze upon the Icons, and eat and drink the very Body and Blood of Christ, the Living Word of God.

In this context of the fulness of The Truth as found in Orthodoxy, the Bible is perfect.

Moses

 

[nicodemus]

As Andreas and Moses have rightly pointed out, we view the Scriptures as being free from error.

As I'm sure you can imagine, we would not decorate something so lavishly that we feel to be riddled with error!

This is a common site in the Orthodox churches to see the Gospel book decorated like this:

 

[Orthodox Andrew]

When I was Baptized, the Priest held the Gospels in gold covering like you see above, for me to kiss them out of respect for them.

 

[Fineous_Reese]

thank you for your replies, i'm reading and re-reading the emails trying to grasp what is being said. i'm a little confused as Nicodemus states/concurs that Andreas and Moses hold the Scriptures as free from error while the emails Andreas posted speak of errors being added with each translation and generation away from the original writers?

Every translation of the Bible has introduced errors that occur naturally in the process of translation because some words or phrases do not have an exact equivalent in another language or have a different meaning or understanding in that language.

i'm realizing the scriptures aren't held alone but used in concordance with hymns, icons and liturgies however the hymns and liturgies are also in written language and so were either translated over time or created since the writing of the scriptures. either instance would add errors to them as well due to translational issues and/or imprecise languages, no? (the icons as pure images would be even further at risk of imprecise interpretations?) i'm not trying to be a jerk or a troll, i really am trying to understand. my background was southern baptist (although i was in a dance company in college and enjoy the taste of rum so mayhaps i'm not a shining example of southern baptist ) if that helps y'all understand where i'm coming from.

-Fin

 

[Orthodox Andrew]

thank you for your replies, i'm reading and re-reading the emails trying to grasp what is being said. i'm a little confused as Nicodemus states/concurs that Andreas and Moses hold the Scriptures as free from error while the emails Andreas posted speak of errors being added with each translation and generation away from the original writers?



i'm realizing the scriptures aren't held alone but used in concordance with hymns, icons and liturgies however the hymns and liturgies are also in written language and so were either translated over time or created since the writing of the scriptures. either instance would add errors to them as well due to translational issues and/or imprecise languages, no? (the icons as pure images would be even further at risk of imprecise interpretations?) i'm not trying to be a jerk or a troll, i really am trying to understand. my background was southern baptist (although i was in a dance company in college and enjoy the taste of rum so mayhaps i'm not a shining example of southern baptist ) if that helps y'all understand where i'm coming from.

-Fin

I think what Nicdemus is saying, is that we can all agree that the Bible is perfect in light of Holy Tradition. That is to say, it plays its part perfectly.

The Hymns are very different. Each language has a lot of its own hymms tailor made for it. And for the hymns shared, they are usually short, and the Monks are ever so careful when they translate them. Actually some Saints when bringing the Bible, hymns etc. to a new people, have been known to create a language for them to translate the stuff into.


Icons are usually very straight forward. Each aspect of the Icon means a distinct thing.


P.S. I know you're not a troll.

 

[MariaRegina]

Dear Fin:

There is a difference between the original texts of the Bible (in Hebrew, Aramaic and in Greek) and translations of those texts.

The Septuagint text is among the oldest (circa 200 BC), while the Hebrew text was done around 200 A.D. The KJV uses largely the Hebrew Text which has errors as it is not the original text. Therefore you will find errors in the KJV. The RSV also has errors in it. This is why the Orthodox Church prefers the Septuagint text.

If you have read some of the inclusive modernistic translations that are in use today, would you call these translations inspired and inerrent. No, of course, not! For example, Psalm I should read "Blessed is the man" with man referring to Christ. However some modernists translations use the verse. "Blessed are those" the plural does not refer to Christ. Do you see what I mean. The translations are at fault because they try to be politically correct and in the process become theologically incorrect.

The KJV has errors in it due to translations from the Hebrew Text (a more recent translation than the Septuagint).

This is the point that Father Lawrence is trying to make.

Hope this helps.

Lovingly yours in Christ,
Elizabeth

 

[readerpaul]

Fin---

Perhaps the way to understand these excellent posts is to say that the Church teaches that the Holy Scriptures are "theologically true and inerrant"; that is, when read and interpreted in the context of Holy Tradition--the totality of God's revelation to mankind---they are indeed the inspired word of God. Since the Church gave us the Scriptures, it's inconceivable that Scripture would contradict the rest of Holy Tradition.

But, Divine Scripture is not a science book, or even a history book---rather it is the story of God's progressive revelation of Himself to mankind. So, for example, is the Genesis account of creation infallible? Theologically, absolutely: the Church insists that God created the world from nothing. Is Genesis scientific? Here, endless debates ensue. What did the author mean, for example, with the "seven days" of creation, etc., etc.? I'm sure you're familiar with this drill.

When read in context---that is, through the prism of the rest of Holy Tradition---the Church says Scripture is indeed theologically infallible.
Hope this helps,

reader paul

 

[ufonium2]

my background was southern baptist (although i was in a dance company in college and enjoy the taste of rum so mayhaps i'm not a shining example of southern baptist ) if that helps y'all understand where i'm coming from.

*ufonium2 searches her (admittedly not KJV) Bible for commandments against dancing and rum*

Nope, still not there This year my church signed up for a dance class together as kind of a post-Lent stress reliever, and it was great. We also drank more than a bit of wine after Pascha (Easter) services, for the same reason. We'd make really lousy southern baptists.

My answer to the OP (which is admittedly not as learned as those above but makes sense in my muddled brain):

The Bible as we have it today is obviously not without error, as Andreas's priest pointed out above. There are some practical things in the Gospels which don't line up. This could be caused by any number of human errors that we've already discussed. I don't know about you, but a variance in the number of demoniacs between Gospel accounts isn't going to shake my faith, nor do I even consider it relevant to fallibility. The Gospels aren't prophecy, nor are they instruction in the way the Epistles are. They are accounts of the life of Christ by people who walked with him on Earth and probably weren't taking notes (especially since most of them couldn't write.) There's no doubt in my mind that God told them to write these accounts, but like others have said I don't believe God sent them down like the Commandments, nor did he dictate them to the Apostles (after all, the whole point is they were there when this stuff happened.) So, I don't see acknowledging these flaws as undermining the authority or authenticity of Scripture in any way.

I feel I should qualify that by saying that acknowledging errors in historical accounts (including the Gospels and the OT) in no way implies errors in any of the Epistles or in Christ's teachings (which to my knowledge line up in the Gospels anyway.) So, I'll admit that the Gospels don't always agree on details, but that's not saying I think Paul could have meant that we should not pray without ceasing, and maybe he just mixed up his grammar. I know that's an exaggeration, but I've heard arguments along those lines before.

So what I'm saying in my roundabout way is that I see the Bible as infallible (I'll pre-apologize for this comparison ) the way Catholicism sees the Pope as infallible. "Infallible" doesn't mean "perfect all the time," it means "perfect when it matters." So, they believe that when the Pope speaks about very important things under very specific circumstances, that he's speaking the absolute God-inspired truth, but if he's talking to his cousin and says "The '64 RedSocks were the best team in the history of baseball" that's not necessarily true.

That kind of my impression about the Bible. All of its books are the result of Divine inspiration, and none of the teachings of the Old Testament, nor of Christ or his Apostles have been distorted in any way. The Holy Spirit guided the men who compiled the Bible, and I believe all the books in the canon deserve to be there. These things are important. What's not so important is the exact number of people present at which events, whether or not "gopher wood" ever existed, stuff like that.

My long-winded opinion which is in no way meant to reflect or represent official Church doctrine.

 

[Fineous_Reese]

*ufonium2 searches her (admittedly not KJV) Bible for commandments against dancing and rum*

Nope, still not there This year my church signed up for a dance class together as kind of a post-Lent stress reliever, and it was great. We also drank more than a bit of wine after Pascha (Easter) services, for the same reason. We'd make really lousy southern baptists.

lol, i've never found it in there either (although i usually use NIV and NASB) and i can't read Ecc 3 without thinking nostagically of Kevin Bacon's speech in Footloose

my point was that this is a SB church tradition outside of Scripture (although not all SBC's follow it)

My answer to the OP (which is admittedly not as learned as those above but makes sense in my muddled brain):

The Bible as we have it today is obviously not without error, as Andreas's priest pointed out above. There are some practical things in the Gospels which don't line up. This could be caused by any number of human errors that we've already discussed. I don't know about you, but a variance in the number of demoniacs between Gospel accounts isn't going to shake my faith, nor do I even consider it relevant to fallibility. The Gospels aren't prophecy, nor are they instruction in the way the Epistles are. They are accounts of the life of Christ by people who walked with him on Earth and probably weren't taking notes (especially since most of them couldn't write.) There's no doubt in my mind that God told them to write these accounts, but like others have said I don't believe God sent them down like the Commandments, nor did he dictate them to the Apostles (after all, the whole point is they were there when this stuff happened.) So, I don't see acknowledging these flaws as undermining the authority or authenticity of Scripture in any way.

I feel I should qualify that by saying that acknowledging errors in historical accounts (including the Gospels and the OT) in no way implies errors in any of the Epistles or in Christ's teachings (which to my knowledge line up in the Gospels anyway.) So, I'll admit that the Gospels don't always agree on details, but that's not saying I think Paul could have meant that we should not pray without ceasing, and maybe he just mixed up his grammar. I know that's an exaggeration, but I've heard arguments along those lines before.

So what I'm saying in my roundabout way is that I see the Bible as infallible (I'll pre-apologize for this comparison ) the way Catholicism sees the Pope as infallible. "Infallible" doesn't mean "perfect all the time," it means "perfect when it matters." So, they believe that when the Pope speaks about very important things under very specific circumstances, that he's speaking the absolute God-inspired truth, but if he's talking to his cousin and says "The '64 RedSocks were the best team in the history of baseball" that's not necessarily true.

That kind of my impression about the Bible. All of its books are the result of Divine inspiration, and none of the teachings of the Old Testament, nor of Christ or his Apostles have been distorted in any way. The Holy Spirit guided the men who compiled the Bible, and I believe all the books in the canon deserve to be there. These things are important. What's not so important is the exact number of people present at which events, whether or not "gopher wood" ever existed, stuff like that.

My long-winded opinion which is in no way meant to reflect or represent official Church doctrine.

thanks much to you and the others for your responses. i'm still pondering why the Spirit would guide the compilation but not the particular word choices in something as important as the scriptures. a compilation with errors doesn't seem too Holy. i've got a lot to chew on
-Fin

 

[nicodemus]

I disagree that the Gospels don't match up on details. It'll take me forever to dig for the references, but if you've read the Gospel commentaries of Theophylact of Bulgaria, he explains the supposed discrepancies. I can't recommend that series of books highly enough.

 

[Eusebios]

I will not even pretend that I can add anything valuable to the excellent responses given by others, so I will offer something perhaps a bit different, for whatever it may be worth.
The scriptures have been a part of my life since I was a young boy, perhaps 12 or so, and I was attracted to them before that. I poured over them as a teen, searched them zealously in my twenties, defending it with every fiber of my being.
There then came a point of great turmoil in my life. I never turned my back on my faith, but I did start to question the "infalibility of the scriptures, and in fact what "the word of God" really is.Then it hit me. Jesus Christ is the Divine Logos, Heis, The Word of God. Unfortunately, this revelation, outside of The One Holy , Catholic and Apostolic Church became for me at once a stumbling block and a catalyst. On the one hand, I put down the scriptures (to my detrement) and on the other hand I continued my search, for Christ, and though I didn't know it, for His Church.
And the one thing (though that's hardly a fair statement), I should say the primary thing, or perhaps the paramount thing I began to grasp as I made that journey, was that God had become for man, not a book, but a man.It is for that reason that I came to the Orthodox Church, so focused on the incarnation, where I "discovered" St. Athanasius and his most excellent treatise On the Incarnation . Where I came to understand that even were I to lose the scriptures, I would still gain Christ, that which is infinetly more important, that which is eternal. My sig tag I believe says it all.
Alas I have rambled on too long.
Under His Mercy,
Eusebios.

 

[Eusebios]

Now that I'm back from work, I'll give this thread a little bump and follow up on some of the thoughts in my previous post. Coming to Holy Orthodoxy has restored my love of and zeal for the scriptures. I understand that as it fits in with the balance of Tradition, it is innerant and worthy of not only reading, but veneration.
I love the fact that when we read the scriptures, whether corporately or individually, we chant rather than merely read them We do so because we recognize how truly extraordinary they are.
Thanks to Fineous Reese for starting this thread. Please feel free to ask other questions as they arise.
Under His Mercy,
Eusebios.

 

[The Prokeimenon!]

we chant rather than merely read them We do so because we recognize how truly extraordinary they are.

Often they are strait-chanted, or intoned (said on the same note, with little or no inflection) to avoid overemphasizing certain words. This guards us from making our own private interpretations, and allows the Scriptures to speak for themselves.

(hey, I think I'll add this to the "Favorite Things about Orthodoxy" thread )

Moses