Orthodox Biblical Canon

[PFC Nektarios]

What is the differance between the Orthodox Biblical Canon and the Roman Catholic Biblical Canon?
Also what order is the new testament books in the Orthodox Bible?

In Christ
OL

[Justin Kissel]

The Orthodox canon closely follows the Septuagint, so that in addition to the books the Catholics have in their canon (Sirach, Wisdom of Solomon, Tobit, etc.) the Orthodox canon also many times has: 3rd Maccabees, Ps. 151, Prayer of Manasseh, 1st and 2nd Esdras (which I believe the Catholics call 2nd and 3rd Esdras since they already have a different book named 1st Esdras), and a few other small additions. 4th Maccabees is sometimes an appendix.

There is no fixed dogmatic position in the Church as to the canon, though. Er... that is not to say that we choose the canon we want to use. What I mean is, there is no universally accepted canon throughout the Church, so that if some scholar here or there questioned whether the book of 3rd Maccabees should be "on a lower footing" he would be condemned. That's actually the way it was throughout Christianity until the 16th century, when the Protestants wanted to define exactly what their foundation was (hard to be sola scriptura when you can't even say which scriptura), and the Catholics defined their canon at Trent as part of the counter-reformation.

I personally believe that it's a fine line when you talk about the Scriptures and their canonicity. I think it is incorrect to say that things were set in stone in the fourth century and haven't changed since. Innumerable documents, from throughout the centuries show that this position is simply untenable. Saint John of Damascus even had a different New Testament Canon (cf Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 4, 17), and discussions concerning the Old Testament have continued right up to our time, so I can hardly see how someone can speak absolutely about the matter (if they are trying to speak absolutely for the entire Church). I think the opposite extreme is even more dangerous though: that is, picking and choosing what you want to believe and what you don't. I guess the best policy is just to follow what your bishop or Local Church's Tradition is on the matter.

PS. There's a great quote in the book Scripture and Tradition by Bps. Chrysostom and Auxentios which really articulates nicely the Orthodox position on the canon (which can sometimes seem chaotic). I'll copy it down tonight and post it tomorrow.

[Justin Kissel]

Thinking about what I said in the last post, I think I'd better clarify. I'm not saying that the New Testament is "up in the air"; that was not the point of bringing up the Saint John of Damascus example. The point was that we should be careful in how we speak about the scriptures being canonized. Ironically I think I was very uncareful in my last post. The Scriptural canon is not dogma in Orthodoxy, so to understand the Orthodox position we look to how the "Mind of the Fathers" has spoken about it (through the voice of individual fathers and councils and so forth).

Certainly the Church's position on what the New Testament Canon is pretty well attested to from the early centuries on, with only a few exceptions (Hebrews, Revelation, Jude, and a couple others). The Old Testament is somewhat less assured, but even then it is not the entire Old Testament that is disputed over, but only a handful of books within the potential canon. Whether the books of the Maccabees has the same doctrinal authority as the Psalms or the book of Joshua may be disputed, but certainly no one (except heretics) thought to throw out the Maccabees, the Psalms, and Joshua.

The Old Testament disputes are not over whether Gensis or Exodus are canonical--no one denies that they are. The disputes are whether Sirach holds the same weight as Proverbs, or whether Ps. 151 has the same authority as Ps. 150, and so forth. In the end, I don't think the matter is as important as some make it. Now, of course it is important to know what canon you should use, and it is important to know that, for instance, the Gospels are truthful and divinely-inspired. But whether 3rd Maccabees is a divinelyinspired book, or just an edifying religious book, I don't think this is crucial. Many Church Father's didn't seem to think so either.

Even the Fathers who appear to reject the (so-called) Apocrypha many times quote it, and even quote it as an authority to establish doctrine. Orthodoxy seeks out truth--whether it's in Plato or Judas Maccabeus: the important thing is to understand the will of God, not in dogmatizing all the methods we use to understand the will of God. If something speaks truth, it is in a certain way self-dogmatizing--or self-assured, for if it is really truthful then it is also trustworthy, divinely-inspired, and infinite.

Anyway, hopefully I've succeeded in taking my foot out of my mouth. As I spoke of yesterday, here is the quote from Archbishop Chrysostomos of Etna and Bishop Auxentios of Photiki:

It would be indeed unwise if we were to see the Orthodox attitude toward the Apocrypha as a kind of midpoint along our spectrum [ie. between the Protestant and Catholic positions on either side]. In this sense, we would abuse our conceptual construct. The Orthodox position is one which corresponds, in part, with both the Roman Catholic and Protestant views, neither representing one or the other faithfully, nor providing a distinct alternative to either. On the other hand, as in Roman Catholicism, the Orthodox accept the decrees of the Church Councils as authoritatively binding. On the other hand, they see these decrees as efficacious only when they are accepted by the universal Church and brought to full maturity by their compatibility with spiritual life and experience, with what is "Orthodox".

About this we will have much more to write. Suffice it to say that this principle (the marriage of practice and authority...) accounts for the fact that, today (as was so vividly apparent at the unfortunate Pan-Orthodox Synod of Rhodes in 1961), Greek theological thinkers fully accept the Apocrypha, while some contemporary Russian theologians express reservations about them. Yet the unity of the two Churches prevails. It is not that two attitudes prevail in one Church, but that the two attitudes define and constitute the position of the One Church." (Emphsis mine) - Archbp. Chrysostomos and Bp. Auxentios, Scripture and Tradition, (Center For Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, 1999), pp. 21-22

[Justin Kissel]

Some more thoughts (with a lot more to be added later this year, I hope). The early Fathers seem to have believed two different things, but yet believed that there was not only not a contradiction in what they held to, but not even an appearance of a contradiction which they might have to speak about. The two things are:

1) Regarding the Old Testament, the so-called deutero-canonical or apocrypha books were generally not accepted as part of the canon. Sts. Athanasius, John of Damascus, Gregory the Theologian, and many others rejected them from their list of canonical books.

2) Nonetheless, these books were quoted as "scripture" over and over again: by Ecumenical Councils, by many Church Fathers, and even by the saints I just mentioned (in 1) who didn't include them in their list of canonical books!

This seemingly chaotic situation has continued up to the present, and can be easily traced through the sources. It has been said that the Orthodox perspective on the canon is really nothing like either the Catholic or Protestant perspectives, but a whole other creature entirely. As I read, and converse with, both Protestants and Catholics, I am coming to see the profundity and importance of the Orthodox position more and more, not only as it relates to the divinely-inspired Scriptures, but also as it relates to how we live our life on a daily basis.

[Justin Kissel]

What The Church Fathers and Councils Said About The Apocrypha

St. Melito of Sardis († c. 180) - In: Eusebius, Ecclestiastical History, 4, 26
Rejects everything except Wisdom of Solomon

Origen († c. 253) - In: Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 6, 25
Rejects everything except (perhaps) 1 and 2 Maccabees

Council of Laodicea (mid-4th century) - Canons 59 and 60
Rejects everything except Baruch (added on to jeremiah)

St. Hilary of Poitiers (†368) - On the OT Canon
Rejects everything, but mentions that some accept Tobit and Judith

St. Athanasius (†373) - Letter 39
Rejects everything except Baruch (added on to jeremiah)

St. Cyril of Jerusalem (†386) - Catechetical Lectures, 4
Rejects everything except Baruch (added on to jeremiah)

St. Gregory the Theologian (†389) - Canon of Scripture
Rejects all apocrypha

Amphilocius of Iconium (†394) - Canon of Scripture
Rejects all apocrypha

Epiphanius of Salamis (†402) - The Penarion
Accepts Baruch (added on to jeremiah), and perhaps Sirach and Wisdom of Solomon, rejects the rest

Council of Carthage (419) - Canon 24
Accepts Tobit., Judith., 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, and Sirach; rejects the rest

Bl. Augustine (†430) - On Christian Doctrine, 2, 8
Accepts Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, and Sirach, rejects the rest

Galasius of Rome (†496) - Decretum Gelasianum
Accepts Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Tobit, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Judith, rejects the rest

Junilius (†552) - Instituta Regularia Divinae Legis
Accepts: sirach and says that some accept wisdom, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Maccabees.

St. John of Damascus († mid-8th century) - Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 4, 17
Rejects all apocrypha

Pat. Dositheus of Jerusalem (†1707) - Confession of Dositheus, Question 3
Accepts Baruch, Wisdom of Solomon, Judith, Tobit, The History of the Dragon, The History of Susanna, 1 and 2 (and 3?) Maccabees, and Sirach

What Contemporary Orthodox Theologians Say About the Apocrypha

"It would be indeed unwise if we were to see the Orthodox attitude toward the Apocrypha as a kind of midpoint along our spectrum [ie. between the Protestant and Catholic positions on either side]. In this sense, we would abuse our conceptual construct. The Orthodox position is one which corresponds, in part, with both the Roman Catholic and Protestant views, neither representing one or the other faithfully, nor providing a distinct alternative to either. On the one hand, as in Roman Catholicism, the Orthodox accept the decrees of the Church Councils as authoritatively binding. On the other hand, they see these decrees as efficacious only when they are accepted by the universal Church and brought to full maturity by their compatibility with spiritual life and experience, with what is "Orthodox". About this we will have much more to write. Suffice it to say that this principle (the marriage of practice and authority...) accounts for the fact that, today (as was so vividly apparent at the unfortunate Pan-Orthodox Synod of Rhodes in 1961), Greek theological thinkers fully accept the Apocrypha, while some contemporary Russian theologians express reservations about them. Yet the unity of the two Churches prevails. It is not that two attitudes prevail in one Church, but that the two attitudes define and constitute the position of the One Church." - Archbp. Chrysostomos and Bp. Auxentios, Scripture and Tradition, (Center For Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, 1999), pp. 21-22

"The Hebrew version of the Old Testament contains thirty-nine books. The Septuagint contains in addition ten further books, not present in the Hebrew, which are known in the Orthodox Church as the ‘Deutero-Canonical Books’ (3 Esdras; Tobit; Judith; 1, 2, and 3 Maccabees; Wisdom of Solomon; Ecclesiasticus; Baruch; Letter of Jeremias. In the west these books are often called the ‘Apocrypha’). These were declared by the Councils of Jassy (1642) and Jerusalem (1672) to be ‘genuine parts of Scripture;’ most Orthodox scholars at the present day, however, following the opinion of Athanasius and Jerome, consider that the Deutero-Canonical Books, although part of the Bible, stand on a lower footing than the rest of the Old Testament." - Bishop Kallistos (Ware), The Orthodox Church

"The Orthodox Bible contains certain other Scriptures besides that normally found in the Hebrew bible and most English language Bibles. The word Apocrypha means things that are hidden, although why so is not positively known. Sometimes these books are given the title Deutero-canonicalas contrasted to Proto-canonical to distinguish the first (or proto) canonical books from those that came later (deutero — second). This term is to be preferred over Apocrypha since that word may have negative meanings. The Deutero-canonical books appeared as part of Holy Scripture with the translation of the Hebrew Scripture into Greek by Alexandrian Jews who had been gathered together for that purpose in Egypt just prior to the New Testament times. Over the centuries, however, these books have been disputed by many; many hold them to have little or no value as Scripture. However, both the Orthodox and Roman Catholics accept them as part of the Biblical Canon, whereas, since the Reformation, most Protestants have rejected them as being spurious. Although the Orthodox Church accepts these books as being canonical, and treasures them and uses them liturgically, she does not use them as primary sources in the definition of her dogmas." - A Monk of Saint Tikhon's Monastery, "These Truths We Hold," The Holy Orthodox Church: Her Life and Teaching

"All the Bible is the Word of God, all Scripture is divinely inspired (II Tim. 3:16). But one may distinguish among its parts those more or less important for us, at least within the limits of that which is accessible to us. The Gospels are for us different from the books of Ruth or Joshua; the Epistles are not the same as Ecclesiastes or Proverbs. The same distinction obtains between canonical and deutero-canonical books. Protestantism has arbitrarily impoverished its Bible by excluding the deutero-canonical books. This distinction in degree of divine inspiration seems contradictory. Can there be degrees of inspiration? Is there not simply presence or absence of inspiration? This simply means that divine inspiration is concrete and that it adapts itself to human weakness and consequently can be greater or less. This is why the non-canonical books have a certain authority as the Word of God, but less authority than that of the canonical books. Speaking generally, the Bible is an entire universe, it is a mysterious organism, and it is only partially that we attain to living in it." - Sergei Bulgakov, The Orthodox Church

"The [Orthodox] Church accepts these latter books also as useful and instructive and in antiquity assigned them for instructive reading not only in homes but also in churches, which is why they have been called "ecclesiastical." The Church includes these books in a single volume of the Bible together with the canonical books. As a source of the teaching of the faith, the Church puts them in a secondary place and looks on them as an appendix to the canonical books. Certain of them are so close in merit to the divinely inspired books that, for example, in the eighty-fifth Apostolic Canon, the three books of Maccabees and the book of Joshua the son of Sirach are numbered together with the canonical books, and, concerning all of them together, it is said that they are "venerable and holy." However, this means only that they were respected in the ancient Church; but a distinction between the canonical and non-canonical books of the Old Testament has always been maintained in the Church." - Fr. Michael Pomazansky, Orthodox Dogmatic Theology

[Justin Kissel]

"The second difference is that the early Christians adopted a larger number of Jerish writings than the official list complied by rabbinic teachers at Jamnia or later. These additional books were in circulation from pre-Christian times in the Greek language among Greek-speaking Jews who regarded them as valuable. These books express the diverse beliefs, practices, and hopes of many Jews during the time of the Greek and Roman dominance of the ancient world. However, because they carried neither sufficient antiquity nor authority in the Jewish tradition, they were left out of the Hebrew canon by rabbinic leaders who intended to unite and consolidate Judaism after the desastrous wars with Rome during the first and second centuries.

But the Christians esteemed these writings and preserved them. In the East, they became known as Readable Books (literally, "readable") and in the West Deuterocanonical ("of secondary authority"). Although their precise numer varies, these writings are still part of the Orthodox and Roman Catholic canons of the Old Testament. With the Reformation, Protestants adopted the Jewish canon and eliminated these books from the Bible. They designated them as Apocrypha, a pejorative word meaning "hidden books," a term which in the ancient Christian tradition was applied to still other books whose authority was rejected by the Church. These latter books, such as the Book of Jubilees, the Martyrdom of Isaiah, and the Assumption of Moses, were nevertheless preserved by Christians on account of historical and religious interestes. They carry no canonical authority but certainly bear historical value because they attest to the beliefs and practices of their authors and their specific religious grous. These books are still designated as Apocrypha in the Orthodox Church, but are called Pseudepigrapha (literally, "falsely titled") by Protestants. Thus, by and large, what Protestants call Apocrypha the Orthodox call Readable or Deuterocanonical. Many current Protestant Bibles, for reasons of ecumenical openness and scholarly interestes, regularly feature the Readable Books as "The Apocrypha" or "The Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical," albeit as an appendix.

In addition to the Readable/Deuterocanonical books, the Orthodox and Roman Catholics Bibles contain extensive passages in the canonical books of Esther and Daniel not found in the Hebrew version of these texts. Although traditionally these passages are part of the canonical books, the Protestants placed them among the "Apocrypha" according to their nomenclature and call them "Additions" to the Greek version of Esther and Daniel. In the case of Daniel, these passages include the Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Youths, the story of Susanna, and the story of Bel and the Dragon. In the case of Esther, they include shorter passages too numerous to mention here. The inclusive interests of the Eastern tradition extended to additional texts that are taken up in the Orthodox Bibles. Among them are the Prayer orf Manasses and Psalm 151. The Slavonic version alone includes Esdras 2. The Greek version alone includes Maccabees 4 as an appendix.

In total, the Hebrew Scriptures contain thirty-eight books, Ezra and Nehemiah forming one book. The Jewish tradition developed and maintains its own numbering and sequential arrangement of these books. The Protestant Old testament numbers thirty-nine books seperating the Books of Ezra and Nehimiah according to ancient Christian tradition. The Roman Catholic Old Testament, including seven Deuterocanonical Books and the Epistle of Jeremiah to Baruch, totals forty-six books. The Orthodox Old Testament maintains the most inclusive canon of the ancient Chruch which embraces, together with the ten Readable Books [ie. Tobit, Judith, 3 Book of the Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Baruch, Epistle of Jeremiah, Esdras], forty-nine books. In addition, a few other writings mentioned above, such as Prayer of Mansses and Psalm 151, are accorded some value within the Orthodox Tradition

It should be noted, as well, that the sequence of the scriptural books varies in the Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox Bibles, somethign easily ascertained by any reader comparing current editions of the Bible from these traditions. Two significant differences deserve the reader's attention. On eis that the Orthodox and Catholic Bibles integrate the Readable and Deuterocanonical books within their respective Old Testament canons, whereas Protestant Bibles put them in an appendix. This fact indicates a remaining difference of views regarding the canonical authority of these books. The second is that the official Orthodox Old Testament continues to be the Greek Septuagint version, whereas the current Protestant and Catholic Bibles are translations of the Hebrew original called the Masoretic text." - Theodore G. Stylianopoulos, The New Testament: An Orthodox Perspective; Volume 1: Scripture, Tradition, Hermeneutic, (Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2002), pp. 22-25

[Justin Kissel]

Something I just realised tonight as I was reading a site dealing with the canon. A peculiar problem is presented by the 2nd canon of the 6th Ecumenical Council (680AD). In this canon, numerous earlier collections of canons from local councils, and canons from individual fathers, were given approval. Essentially, this means that many divergent canons were given approval by the highest authority in the Church. This is the same situation that the Orthodox find themselves in today, with a solid idea as to what consistutes the canon but still some uncertainty about the apocryphal books (as demonstrated by the quotes from contemporary theologians above).