History of the Bible

[Alex Haig]

I'm interested in the history of the Bible, in particular how the books were put into it. I've done (albeit brief) research on the the internet and on this site but haven't found much of use, only snippets.

I'd be grateful if anyone can help with this, as either an overview or in-depth.

With love in Christ

Alex

[James H.]

Me too. I'm also interested in the history behind the "deutero-canonicals" and what seperates them from the other books from and Orthodox perspective. How does our view differ from the Catholic view on this? Why are some of these books (and Revelations too) not included in the Orthodox liturgical calendar. Do we see some books as less inspred than others?

Thanks,

James

[matt]

THe best book that i have read on the subject of the canon is Bruce Metzger's "The Canon of the New TEstament; Its Origin, Development and Significance". You really can't go wrong with it and any theological library whould have a copy. There is also the easy to read book by, I think, F.F. Bruce, "The New Testament Documents: Are they Reliable?" Very good!

James, if you want to learn more about the Old Testament in the Orthodox Church, there is a very useful if not somewhat ambiguous chapter on the whole subject in "New Perspectives on Hsitorical Theology:Essays in Memory of John Meyendorff".

Matt

[Herman Blaydoe]

There is an excellent discussion of Holy Scripture and its place in the Church at Holy Scripture in the Orthodox Church (http://www.serfes.org/orthodox/scripturesinthechurch.htm).

[Herman Blaydoe]

One other source is at: The Orthodox Bible by Bishop Nathaniel (http://gnisios.narod.ru/nathanaelbible.html). Be warned it may take a while to load.

But I think you will agree it is worth the wait.

Herman

[John Charmley]

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

Although there have been no posts on this thread for a while, this seems a better place to raise the issue of how the Biblical canon came into existence, than the more recent one on the Apochrypha, although some of the comments made there are certainly relevant here.

The commercial success of the Da Vinci code book has led to a plethora of books and programmes about the so-called Gnostic gospels, most of which reveal a level of ignorance on the part of the programme makers which would be worrying if it were not for the fact that whenever I have had anything to do with people making TV programmes, their ignorance of the subject they wish to treat is fathomless.

This stuff sent me back to the Fathers, in particular, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen, before going on to Eusebius, and trying to make sense of this against my usual (Anglican) sources, I wanted to seek the enlightenment of Orthodoxy on this. So, if you will bear with me and correct me where I and my usual sources have an insufficiently Orthodox understanding, I would be grateful.

Clement, like Tertullian before him (I ought to admit here that I am less familiar with Tertullian than I would like to be, so I am taking this bit on trust), divided the Bible into OT and NT, but does not give a definitive canon. He sees the law, the prophets and the gospels as essential. He quotes much from 'our; four gospels, but also from The Gospel According to the Egyptians, which we might label 'gnostic'; however, Clement's interpretation of what he quotes seems impeccably Orthodox.

He uses the Pauline letters, including the pastorals and, as an Alexandrian, Hebrews, although that was not universally used at the time. He also quotes extensively from Revelation, which again, was not the universal practice at the time. But he also cites the Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas, and The Gospel according to the Hebrews. But, broadly speaking, he and Tertullian accepted the books in the so-called Muratorian Canon, which itself, was no more than a list of the books which the faithful had accepted because of their apostolic origin - and which included most of the books in 'our' NT.

It may be that there are earlier sources than Origen for the distinction between acknowledged and disputed books, and I would be grateful for enlightenment on this; but he is my earliest source for this distinction.

He 'accepts' the 4 Gospels, Acts, the Pauline letters, 1 Peter, 1 John and Revelation, and as an Alexandrian accepts Hebrews with the comment that 'who actually wrote the letter God only knows.'

He has 'reservations' about 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, James and Jude, although he takes the view that they are authentic and apostolic. He includes in this 'disputed' category The Didache, Gospel according to the Hebrews, the letter of Barnabas, the Acts of Paul and the Preaching of Peter. He seems to put these into a different category than the ones he has reservations about, and clearly thinks that they are not God-inspired or Orthodox.

But he does not put these into his third category of 'false', which does include Gospel According to the Egyptians, Basilides, and Gospel of the Twelve.

The great historian, Eusebius, bases himself on this tradition when he divides the books of the NT into homologoumena, antilegomena and notha (that is acknowledged, disputed but generally recognised, and false).

Only James, Jude, 2 Peter and 2 and 3 John come into the second category (Ecclesiastical History 3.3.1 and following, also 3.25, 1-7), and he acknowledges, like Origen, that they were generally thought to be apostolic and God-inspired. His doubts about Revelation were quelled by Constantine's support for the book, as well as by its acceptance by Origen and other traditions. All the rest get rejected.

So, way before Nicea we see the development of what becomes our canon, and the basic principles as always the same - has it always been accepted as apostolic and as God-inspired? What is its tradition? Is its teaching Orthodox? There is no question in this of 'the Church' imposing a canon, but rather of it accepting the canon that had been created by the belief of the faithful. The Church does not impose a list of authoritative books, it recognises the one that has already been created.

Well, this is a long enough posting, especially if I am in error, and its purpose is to seek enlightenment from Orthodox scholars and the Orthodox teaching on these matters, not to offer my own views, which can be based only on my previous tradition and upon renewed study of the Fathers and Patristics. So I crave correction of my errors and enlightenment through discussion with those here who are interested in these things.

In Christ,

John

[Justin]

Some quick thoughts...


I'm also interested in the history behind the "deutero-canonicals" and what seperates them from the other books from and Orthodox perspective.

I'm sure that a major factor was the fact that they were written/added after the Septuagint was made. So, not only were they not in the Hebrew Old Testament, but they were also late-comers to the Greek Old Testament as well.


How does our view differ from the Catholic view on this?

Speaking of the Old Testament canon, the Catholics finalized their canon at the Council of Trent. Up to that time, there were still some disagreements--in academia if not in actual practice--about what was in the OT canon. Orthodoxy never had a Protestant Reformation, and never had a Counter-Reformation, so they never dogmatically tried to settle the canon. There are lots of canons and such on the subject, of course, from Athanasius and Carthage and such in the early Church, to the Confession of Dositheus and St. Nikodemus, to the modern time. This is not to say that the issue isn't settled, especially regarding the NT, but only that it's settled for each Orthodox by their bishop and not by some ancient canon or council.


Do we see some books as less inspred than others?

Pretty much, yeah. Most theologians would probably opt for a phrase like "on a lower footing".

[Scott Pierson]

At times I think some texts get labeled "gnostic" because Gnostic's read them* (guilt by association) or they have been found bound with other texts that are gnostic.

The Odes of Solomon are a good example. They seem perfectly orthodox** to me, very powerful and poetic but because they had been discovered in a book of gnostic texts many scholars label them gnostic.

I've never read the Gospel of the Egyptians yet though so it may really be gnostic .

* Most of the Bible would be "gnostic" then.
** Apparently some fathers of the Church agreed because its a fairly well quoted text.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

John Charmley wrote:


This stuff sent me back to the Fathers, in particular, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen, before going on to Eusebius, and trying to make sense of this against my usual (Anglican) sources, I wanted to seek the enlightenment of Orthodoxy on this. So, if you will bear with me and correct me where I and my usual sources have an insufficiently Orthodox understanding, I would be grateful.

Clement, like Tertullian before him (I ought to admit here that I am less familiar with Tertullian than I would like to be, so I am taking this bit on trust), divided the Bible into OT and NT, but does not give a definitive canon. He sees the law, the prophets and the gospels as essential. He quotes much from 'our; four gospels, but also from The Gospel According to the Egyptians, which we might label 'gnostic'; however, Clement's interpretation of what he quotes seems impeccably Orthodox.

I don't have time right now to find out when the first lists of canonical books were composed. St Irenaeus of Lyons however also bases much of his argument, in Against Heresies, on the question of what constitute the canonical Gospels. This of course was in response to the so called gospels the gnostics and others were using.

Indeed the birth of the Bible as we know it could be largely a response of the Church to heretics' misuse of Scripture and its whole concept.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[John Charmley]

Dear Fr. Raphael,

Thank you for your comments, and any further enlightenment is most welcome.

When you write

Indeed the birth of the Bible as we know it could be largely a response of the Church to heretics' misuse of Scripture and its whole concept.
you say two profound things of which we should be ever mindful.

Contrary to the myths peddled by some of the latter-day admirers of gnosticism, there seems always to have been a concept of Orthodoxy, and it did, as you suggest, define itself because of what it was and what it was not.

What it was:
1. It was Apostolic. That is it came from the era of the Incarnation and the Apostles, and was either written by an Apostle who had walked with the Incarnate Lord, or by Paul (see Galatians 1:12 and 1 Corinthians 11:23). This is the tradition of the Apostles, who received it from Our Lord, not that of men (Colossians 2:6-8).

2. It was Orthodox. That is that it conformed with the teaching of the Apostles. Valentian and Marcion came up with some 'improvements' on the Gospels, but their work was rejected by this test. It was not what the Apostles had heard and passed on: 1 John 2:24. The so-called Gnostic gospels failed by the same test, and the Church would not have 'poison' mixed with 'honey'. Here the efforts of men like Marcion probably were crucial in making early Christians sift the wheat from the chaff. What is remarkable (or not if we believe Our Lord's words) is how early the true 'wheat' was established - it seems to have been so from the start.

3. That it was Catholic. That is that it was 'what has been believed everywhere, always and by all'. Works that had received only local recognition, such as Hebrews, took longer to be accepted. Eusebius himself draws attention to this problem with 2 Peter, because it was not quoted by the early 'presbyters', but decides that the local tradition which maintained it, along with its Orthodoxy, meant that it should be included.

It was, perhaps, the necessity of establishing what met these criteria that prompted the emergence of an accepted 'canon', but the majority of that 'canon' seems to have been accepted by the earlier part of the second century, if not earlier - or so it seems from Irenaeus - who was a pupil of Polycarp, who was martyred in 155 A.D. at a great age, and who had been taught by St. John himself.

I don't know many things from this period of history which have more proofs of authenticity than the texts of the canon - after all, the Irenaeus-Polycarp link takes us straight back to Apostolic times, and what the former says in his Against Heresies about the teachings of the Apostles is what the Church says today.

Still, I suppose given their own dodgy methodologies, you can't expect that the latter-day admirers of gnosticism would take that as evidence - they much prefer to believe the 'tradition of men' and mix poison with the honey - as heretics always seem to have done.

After all, the second strand of the argument for the 'canon' was that its books were NOT based on the tradition of men.

Again, I would be grateful for correction if I have fallen into error, for my scholarly sources are not all from Orthodox sources (although they have always seemed orthodox to me), and the Fathers are an inexhaustible resource.

In Christ,

John

[Brian B.]

Dear in Christ John,

Earlier you mentioned Clement accepting the Gospel of the Egyptians. This reminded me of an interesting chart I found a few months ago comparing the opinions of many early Christians on most of the Christian writings (orthodox and gnostic).

Here's the chart:
http://www.ntcanon.org/table.shtml

I can't vouch for its accuracy of the site in all particulars, but it does seem to contain a lot of good information.

Hope this helps.

Sincerely,
Brian

[John Charmley]

Dear Brian,

I am much indebted to you for your kindness in posting this link - which gives an almost at a glance guide to this issue.

It does seem as though Clement's proximity to the Alexandrian tradition gave him access to opinions and traditions which which not universal. Reading the chart I am again struck by how early and how universally most of the canon was formed and accepted.

Again, Brian, please accept my thanks for this.

In Christ,

John

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Brian,

I am much indebted to you for your kindness in posting this link - which gives an almost at a glance guide to this issue.

It does seem as though Clement's proximity to the Alexandrian tradition gave him access to opinions and traditions which which not universal. Reading the chart I am again struck by how early and how universally most of the canon was formed and accepted.

Again, Brian, please accept my thanks for this.

In Christ,

John

I second this. A really wonderful resource which I've just bookmarked.

By the way, the way the Cross Reference Table is set up works really well with CoolIris (http://www.cooliris.com/Site/index.html) which as a browsing tool I highly recommend. It works as an extension for Firefox, not sure about IE.

In Christ- Fr Raphael