What has been added to scripture?

[timtams]

It's still not considered canon in the Eastern Orthodox Church.

I was thinking more of its widespread early acceptance and only later rejection, but this is a good point too.

 

[Athanasius377]

That's a misconception.

Actually it is not.

Rejection of apostolic authorship led to severe questions about canonicity. Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea in the early fourth century, was apparently influenced by the work of Dionysius and suggested that the book was written by a John the Elder of whom Papias spoke. Others in the East who questioned the work include Cyril of Jerusalem (315–86), Chrysostom (347–407), and Theodoret (386–457). It was not included among the canonical books at the Council of Laodicea (ca. 360) and was subsequently omitted from the Peshitta, the official Bible in Syriac-speaking Christian lands in the fifth century.
In the West from the second century on the Apocalypse had won wide acceptance. In time the East began to reverse its earlier negative position. In the fourth century Athanasius in Alexandria endorsed it without hesitation. The Third Council of Carthage (397) listed the Apocalypse as canonical and appropriate for public reading in services. When the decrees of Laodicea and Carthage were ratified at the Third Council of Constantinople (680), the Apocalypse received formal acceptance as NT scripture in the eastern church. This favorable opinion was due in part to the first Greek commentaries on Revelation, which appeared about the sixth century.



Mounce, R. H. (1997). The Book of Revelation (pp. 23–24). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

 

[timtams]

Actually it is not.

I think you would benefit from the more recent scholarship of EO writer Constantinou, who demonstrates that Revelation was accepted in the East very early, and only later doubted, largely on account of Eusebius's doubts concerning the work.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Carthage was a local council in the west. It has no impact on the Eastern churches.

So Carthage was rejected by the Eastern churches? I wasn’t aware of this.

 

[timtams]

So Carthage was rejected by the Eastern churches? I wasn’t aware of this.

I've found EO writers that argue that Revelation isn't canonical, but the quote above says that Carthage was ratified by the Third Council of Constantinople (680), so I guess this is an inter-EO debate.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I've found EO writers that argue that Revelation isn't canonical, but the quote above says that Carthage was ratified by the Third Council of Constantinople (680), so I guess this is an inter-EO debate.

I admit I am no expert on EO canon or accepted councils. I do however find the EO teachings to be fascinating and hold the church in very high regard.

 

[prodromos]

So Carthage was rejected by the Eastern churches? I wasn’t aware of this.

it isn't rejected, it just doesn't appear on the radar.

 

[prodromos]

I've found EO writers that argue that Revelation isn't canonical, but the quote above says that Carthage was ratified by the Third Council of Constantinople (680), so I guess this is an inter-EO debate.

What parts of Carthage were ratified?
The books which are considered Canon are all read in the Church throughout the liturgical year. Revelations is not read in the Church with the exception of the church in the monastery on Patmos.

 

[BNR32FAN]

it isn't rejected, it just doesn't appear on the radar.

It’s a bit disturbing that ecumenical councils were held without at least all of the patriarchs in attendance, if not all of the bishops. I wonder if this was a result of lack of invitation or lack of attendance.

 

[timtams]

What parts of Carthage were ratified?
The books which are considered Canon are all read in the Church throughout the liturgical year. Revelations is not read in the Church with the exception of the church in the monastery on Patmos.

I have no idea. I am going by the quotation given by Athanasius377 above, which makes that claim. Since he is EO and since I heard (or thought I heard) that some EOs accept the same 27 books of the NT as RCs and Protestants, I assume there is some inter EO disagreement. If not, perhaps you could clarify.

 

[prodromos]

I have no idea. I am going by the quotation given by Athanasius377 above, which makes that claim. Since he is EO and since I heard (or thought I heard) that some EOs accept the same 27 books of the NT as RCs and Protestants, I assume there is some inter EO disagreement. If not, perhaps you could clarify.

Athanasius377 is Lutheran, and the source he quoted is another Protestant.

The EO definition of Canon is those books which are read in the context of the Liturgy. There are also different levels within the Canon, the Gospels being at the top. Revelations is included with 1 & 2 Clement, the Shepherd of Hermas and a few other early texts that are considered worthy of reading, but are not read in the Liturgy itself. It used to be extremely uncommon to have a single volume containing all the books of the Bible in the Church. The Gospels were one volume which is kept on the altar except when the priest is reading the day's gospel reading, the Psalter is another volume as is the Praxapostolon containing Acts and the Epistles, and other volumes contain the Old Testament and the various hymns for the feast days celebrated throughout the year.

 

[timtams]

Athanasius377 is Lutheran, and the source he quoted is another Protestant.

The EO definition of Canon is those books which are read in the context of the Liturgy. There are also different levels within the Canon, the Gospels being at the top. Revelations is included with 1 & 2 Clement, the Shepherd of Hermas and a few other early texts that are considered worthy of reading, but are not read in the Liturgy itself. It used to be extremely uncommon to have a single volume containing all the books of the Bible in the Church. The Gospels were one volume which is kept on the altar except when the priest is reading the day's gospel reading, the Psalter is another volume as is the Praxapostolon containing Acts and the Epistles, and other volumes contain the Old Testament and the various hymns for the feast days celebrated throughout the year.

I am not sure how I missed that he is Lutheran when it says it clearly. My mistake. I am still confused though. Orthodox Wiki says that the EO accept 27 books, including Revelation, which is one of the 27 but isn't read: New Testament - OrthodoxWiki

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Carthage was a local council in the west. It has no impact on the Eastern churches.

Which Councils do Eastern Churches view as authoritative? Thanks

 

[Daniel Marsh]

I admit I am no expert on EO canon or accepted councils. I do however find the EO teachings to be fascinating and hold the church in very high regard.

What are the best Systematic Theologies on EO theachings? thanks

 

[Daniel Marsh]

It’s a bit disturbing that ecumenical councils were held without at least all of the patriarchs in attendance, if not all of the bishops. I wonder if this was a result of lack of invitation or lack of attendance.

Travel was hard on some, and expensive.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

read to here

 

[BNR32FAN]

What are the best Systematic Theologies on EO theachings? thanks

That would probably be a good question for brother ArmyMatt. I’m still learning Orthodox theology.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

What are the best Systematic Theologies on EO theachings? thanks

We dont have a systematic theology like western churches so you're not going to find a version of Aquinas Summa Theologica. If you want a basic overview, I recommend Kallistos Ware "The Orthodox Church" (covers history and basic theology) and "The Orthodox Way" (which covers EO thought). For an online summary, The Orthodox Faith by Fr. Hopko of blessed memory.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

Which Councils do Eastern Churches view as authoritative? Thanks

We accept the first seven ecumenical councils held from 325 to 787. There are additional councils that are accepted but not revered like the seven.

 

[BNR32FAN]

We accept the first seven ecumenical councils held from 325 to 787. There are additional councils that are accepted but not revered like the seven.

From 375? I thought the first ecumenical council took place in Acts 15?