Orthodox scriptural canon

[Kevin Teo]

I have actually a question pertaining to the Orthodox view of the 'kanon' of the Bible. From my own Protestant, non-Orthodox background, I am aware that the Protestants and evangelicals mainly accept the Bible as comprised of 66 books, while the Roman Catholics contend for the role of the Deuterocanonicals as also canonical in status. I understand that amongst the various rites of Orthodoxy, that is, both Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian(I am referring to the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox) churches, there have been much of a whole contention and difference over the books to be included canonically as the Bible. In that sense, some have more books and some less. What are the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox views of the Biblical kanon respectively, and do these views differ even amongst the various autocephalous branches of these Orthodox churches?

Also, what are the reasons to lead to such a difference in canonicity?

[Owen Jones]

I'm sorry to say that you are mistaken about the "Protestant Canon." The 1611 version of the King James Bible included all of the deuterocanonical books, including Bell and the Dragon.

[Kevin Teo]

My question was about Orthodoxy's view of a Biblical canon, not about the Protestant view. Although I do acknowledge (a fact that escaped my mind) that the 1611 KJV included the deuterocanonicals, in contemporary preaching and liturgical practice within the Anglican-Episcopalian circles, these deuterocanonicals cannot be in any way called "canonical" in the same way Protestants call the 66 books "the Bible", and Anglicans/Episcopalians would generally refer to them as useful reading but not necessarily the "Bible". The 1611 KJV Bible was in many ways just one version amongst the various other translations of the Bible in the vernaculars of Western Europe, including the Wycliffite Bible, and I would not even think that it is necessarily the authoritative version used by all English speaking Europeans then.

[Mary Stavroula]

The deuterocanonical books were part of the Septuagint, the authoritative Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures by Jewish scholars that dates from 300 to 200 BC in Alexandria, Egypt for the Jews of the diaspora. We do not possess the original Hebrew text for this translation of the entire Old Testament, including the seven (and more for the Orthodox) books. By the time of Christ, two thirds of the Jewish people lived outside Palestine and the Septuagint was their version of the Scriptures, and as a result comprise the Old Testament quotations in the New Testament by Paul and the quotes of Jesus. Until the Protestant Reformation the Septuagint and its derivatives remained the canonical norm for Christians. The Massoretic Hebrew text in use today by Jews and Protestants dates from 800 AD. The lectionary used in Greek Orthodox churches for the liturgy is the Septuagint transalation which has been in continual use for over 2000 years. Because of this I don't see why the so-called deuterocanonical books cannot be considered canonical. Can anyone more knowledgeable enlighten me?

[Mary Stavroula]

Also, I forgot to mention that the seven deuterocanonical books were removed by the Archbishop of Cantebury in 1875. Considering this is not even 150 years ago, it's another reason why I don't understand why they cannot be considered canonical.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Canon 85 of the Canons of the Holy Apostles lists the following as "venerable and sacred." the Five Books of Moses, Joshua, Ruth, four of Kingdoms, two of Paralipomena, two of Esdras, Esther, three of Maccabees, Job, Psalter, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, twelve Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel; "outside of these it is permissable for you to to recount in addition...Sirach by way of teaching your younger folks." Interestingly after listing the New Testament books, the canon goes on to approve of the two epistles of Clement.

From post-Apostolic times the Church provided a rule (a canon) concerning which writings were truly of the Church (Scripture) and what must be rejected as spurious or heretical. In providing a canonical Scripture for the faithful the Church was especially concerned to protect the flock from heretical writings. In this sense we could thus say that there is a canonical 'core' to Scripture which forms a kind of non-negotiable minimum.

Beyond this the list of respected books varies. Different lists of books can be found from canons of different Councils. Some ancient manuscripts of Scripture had the works of various Apostolic Fathers appended to them. The 'official' versions of Scripture of the Greek & Russian Churches is different.

In understanding this we must know that the Patristic understanding was that there was no hard and fast division between Scripture and the writings of the Holy Fathers since they are all inspired by the Holy Spirit. Perhaps in this way we can better understand why the there never was a set list of deuterocanonical books.

I hope this is a beginning for answering your question.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Kevin Teo]

Actually, what confuses me is mainly the fact that amongst Syrian Orthodox and other Oriental Orthodox churches, the number of books included as part of a "kanon" is not uniform but contested even amongst themselves. The Syriac Peshitta includes the Didache and 1 and 2 Clement, while the Didache is not included in the Roman Catholic sense of a canon. The Catholics, as I am aware, actually relegate the 66 books mainly to the status of "protocanonicals" in that their verification as Biblical texts of historical worth and theological worth has been achieved early on, while the authenticity of the deuterocanonicals are verified in that sense much later on.

What I do find to be much of a bone for contention is that Martin Luther himself attached the deuterocanonicals in an appendix instead of giving them page or chapter numbers in his German translation of the Bible, because of the ways in which the deuterocanonicals were used by the papacy to offer justification for certain offensive or problematic Catholic doctrines during the Reformation/Counter-Reformation period such as the existence of purgatory, the use of indulgences etcetera. Calvin's Geneva Bible too relegated these texts to the appendix more so mainly due to issues of historical dating, as much as Calvin probably did not anathematize them but acknowledged them as useful reading but not on the same canonical status as the 66 books which are currently used by most evangelicals and Protestants.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

I've only a moment this morning, so not enough time for a full response to the topic here. But just enough for one comment:

Please, let us try to get beyond the language of 'deuterocanonical'; the books normally implied by that term are part of the Orthodox scriptural heritage. To call them a 'deuterocanon' separates them from the scriptural tradition of the Church in a false manner, much occasioned by forces outside the Church itself.

Dear Kevin, your queries regarding the fluidity of the canon goes precisely to show, I would think, that the Orthodox vision of 'canon' is somewhat different from visions of the same concept in other traditions. A canon is a rule, or a guide, even in scriptural terms.

INXC, Matthew

[Owen Jones]

Dear Kevin,

What is it that is confusing you? That Orthodoxy today is not a unified body on every theological question or issue? Is that what you are looking for? A church that is outwardly unified and that there are no loose ends on matters of dogma?

[Herman Blaydoe]

Martin Luther wanted to exclude the Epistle of James, because of its teaching on "works."

The "Oriental" Orthodox disagree with us on the very nature of Christ, should it be surprising that they differ on what authority they assign which writings? Among the Orthodox Churches that recognize and honor all seven Ecumenical Councils, there is no disagreement on what constitutes authoritative Holy Scripture and what is merely edifying text. I don't believe we differ all that much with the Roman Catholics as to what is in the Scriptural canon, it is more a matter of how things are structured.

In the Orthodox Tradition, only certain portions of Holy Scripture are read as part of our corporate worship. There are no readings from the Revelation of the Apostle John, for example, and yet, the very structure and form of our worship is lifted almost verbatim from his descriptions of worship in Heaven. Although there are no direct quotes or readings from the so-called "deuterocanonical" books, Maccabees is almost always cited in any explanation of the Orthodox practice of Prayers for the dead. Therefore, I think it fair to say that the Orthodox Church considers them to be "...given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2nd Timothy 3:16-17)

Disclaimer: The ideas expressed here may or may not reflect the opinion of the poster. Text may contain material some readers may find objectionable, spiritual guidance is advised. Not responsible for direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damages resulting from any defect, use of sarcasm, or failure to suit your particular sense of humor (or lack thereof). Some shifting of context may have occurred during shipment. For external use only. Void where prohibited. Not legal in all spiritual states. Consult a licensed and reputable spiritual advisor before applying. For recreational use only. May exceed the maximum recommended daily dose of irony. If a rash, redness, irritation, or swelling develops, discontinue use. If condition persists, consult your spiritual physician. This notice applies to all posts by this poster whether or not it is included in the post and supercedes all previous disclaimers.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Herman,

You wrote, "Although there are no direct quotes or readings from the so-called 'deuterocanonical books'".

There are readings from The Wisdom of Solomon at Great Vespers on the Feasts of monastic saints.

The Prayer of Manasseh is read at Great Compline during Great Lent and on the eve of Nativity & Theophany.

The Song of the Three Young Men (or Children) is found in the Orthodox Psalter (at the back) and is Odes 7 & 8. In current usage these are now only read as part of the canon at Matins in Great Lent.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Herman Blaydoe]

Father Bless,

I stand corrected. Thank you for this information.

[Mina Monir]

hi all... does any one have a book on PC defends for the second canonical books , which protestants call it Apocryphs?

thnx in advance
Mina