Canonical scripture

[Justin Farr]

What makes Scripture canonical? How was this decided? And why were texts such as the Gospel of *forget name* (the one where it tells of JEsus going into Hell) and the commonly Orthodox used Protoevangelium of James omitted?

Thanks!

[Moses Ibrahim]

It was agreed upon in the 60th canon of the Synod in Laodicea (343-381 AD). I believe this was the first council in which it was discussed. I may be wrong, and if anyone knows of any earlier canon of the New Testament please look to that post for more information. (many do not regard this canon as official... so do more research I guess)

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.viii.vii.iii.lxv.html?highlight=canon,new, testament,ecumenical,council#highlight

[Herman Blaydoe]

In short, the Church decided, in the same manner that the first council of the Apostles decided, "... it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us..."

[Rick H.]

What makes Scripture canonical? How was this decided?




Justin-- I like to think that the closed canon of Scripture was not determined but discovered!

In Christ,
Rick

[Yuri Zharikov]

What makes Scripture canonical? How was this decided? And why were texts such as the Gospel of *forget name* (the one where it tells of JEsus going into Hell) and the commonly Orthodox used Protoevangelium of James omitted?

Thanks!

This work http://www.revisedstandard.net/text/WNP/ deals with the identity of the New Testament in great detail.

[RichardWorthington]

If by 'canonical' you mean 'those read in church' then the book of revelation is still not scripture in the Orthodox church, as it is never read in church.
(in the wikipedia article it mentions the historical usage of books being able to be read in church, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon)

I was under the impression that some lives of saints are read in some services, or perhaps the Ladder of divine ascent (perhaps in monasteries)?

If so then the canon of scripture has never been closed!

Richard

[Olga]

I was under the impression that some lives of saints are read in some services, or perhaps the Ladder of divine ascent (perhaps in monasteries)?


In Greek practice, the Synaxarion of the day is read during the Canon at Matins in monasteries (and in some parish churches) after the Kontakion and the Ikos. The Synaxarion is a list of the saints commemorated on any given day, with a couple of poetic lines summarising each saint's life.


If by 'canonical' you mean 'those read in church' then the book of revelation is still not scripture in the Orthodox church, as it is never read in church.


While Revelation is not part of the daily reading cycle, its inclusion in the canon of scripture is, in part, due to its description of the heavenly liturgy, and therefore, has greatly influenced liturgical development here on earth.

[Kosta]

The canonical scriptures are those scriptures which the bishops of the church agreed as being universal. Some scriptures were popular in certain local churches but unheard of in other churches. These were omitted.
Only those scriptures which agreed with the Holy Tradition passed down to all the churches thru out the world entered the canon.
Like Richard said, Revelation (Apocalypse) was accepted only bit by bit by the local churches and was not universally held as canonical till about 500 a.d. It is not read in church. Canon 85 of the Holy Apostles which was recieved at the 6th ecumenical council (council of trullo) omits Revelation but lists the 2 epistles of Clement.

[Rick H.]

If by 'canonical' you mean 'those read in church' then the book of revelation is still not scripture in the Orthodox church, as it is never read in church.
(in the wikipedia article it mentions the historical usage of books being able to be read in church, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon)

I was under the impression that some lives of saints are read in some services, or perhaps the Ladder of divine ascent (perhaps in monasteries)?

If so then the canon of scripture has never been closed!

Richard


If by canonical we mean the Word of God, then there is no End to this 'book' or experience/encounter (because there is no 'boiler plate' from which to limit or confine). However, if we are talking about the Books/Letters of the New Testament then it is clear where this begins and where this ends and the present.

The Word of God is not limited or confined to any one book or place or assembly.

In Christ,
Rick

[Owen Jones]

Yes, but I think the questioner on this subject deserves a clearer answer as to the historical process by which the existing canonical Scriptures were decided on. Rather than re-defining Scripture.

[Rick H.]

Yes, but I think the questioner on this subject deserves a clearer answer as to the historical process by which the existing canonical Scriptures were decided on. Rather than re-defining Scripture.


Very true. Here's one:

A General Introduction to the Bible, by David Ewert


Amazon.com: General Introduction to the Bible, A: Books: Mr. David Ewert (http://www.amazon.com/General-Introduction-Bible-David-Ewert/dp/0310453712/ref=sr_11_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1202572770&sr=11-1)

Book Description

David Ewert combines the story of the history of the biblical text with the story of the men and the women who went to great extremes to provide their generation with the Word of God in a language that could be understood.

[Rick H.]

Very true. Here's one:

A General Introduction to the Bible, by David Ewert

Yes, transmisson and translation . . .

[Andreas Moran]

The Book of Revelation is read in church during the Saturday evening vigil for Pascha. I think this is the only occasion it is read in church.

[Olga]

Andreas, are you not confusing this with the reading by the people of the entire book of Acts of the Apostles on the afternoon of Holy Saturday?

[Michael Stickles]

What makes Scripture canonical? How was this decided? And why were texts such as the Gospel of *forget name* (the one where it tells of JEsus going into Hell) and the commonly Orthodox used Protoevangelium of James omitted?

There is a good set of tables, charts, and essays (http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon.html) over at the Bible Research website which deal with the canon of scripture. The site's editor comes from a Reformed Protestant viewpoint, so the essays will likely reflect this somewhat (I've only read some of them), but there still seems to be a lot of good reference material there.

For a specifically Orthodox account, The Emergence of the New Testament Canon (http://www.orthodox.net/faq/canon.htm) at orthodox.net is a good summary, as are All Scripture is Inspired by God (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/otcanon.aspx) (on the OT) and Do Not Add to His Words (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/ntcanon.aspx) (on the NT) at orthodoxinfo.com.

Mike

[Andreas Moran]

Olga: Andreas, are you not confusing this with the reading by the people of the entire book of Acts of the Apostles on the afternoon of Holy Saturday?

The Book of Revelation is read on Holy Saturday evening at the monastery here - I know because I've done the reading! This seems not to be done in Russia and perhaps is not general practice. I believe it is the practice in the Coptic Church. I suppose the idea is that the Second Coming is seen in a Paschal way.

[Chris S.]

Please forgive my ignorance, but are the Councils of Hippo and Carthage not binding on the Orthodox Church? I know it was at these Councils that the NT canon was tentatively defined based upon lists of the early Fathers.

For Roman Catholics, the NT canon has been explicitly recapitulated by the Councils of Florence, Trent, Vatican I, and Vatican II.

In response to the original poster, however, who asks why the Church originally chose to incorporate The Gospel of Mark (believed to be written by John Mark, a disciple of Peter) rather than The Gospel of Peter (originally thought to have been written by Peter himself), the answer isn't easy. In most cases, the early Fathers attempted to use texts rooted in apostolic succession; however, as in the case of the Gospel of Peter, a certain bishop overheard this Gospel being read and noted its tendency to promote Docetism, in which case he subsequently barred it from further reading. The original presumption was that even if this text were written by Peter himself, it nonetheless promoted a teaching contrary to tradition.

Just the other day I was reading some fragments from the apocryphal "Kerygma of Peter," which Clement of Alexandria quotes extensively. Origen is not so approving of the document, even though he questioned the possible authenticity of certain strains within the text, going so far as to say it is "not included among the books of the Church." It seems paradoxical: if Fathers such as Clement of Alexandria are approving of the document, what exactly determined a "book of the Church." Based upon my own reading of the fragments, there is very little to suggest anything heretical or contrary to the faith of the early Church.

[Michael Stickles]

Please forgive my ignorance, but are the Councils of Hippo and Carthage not binding on the Orthodox Church? I know it was at these Councils that the NT canon was tentatively defined based upon lists of the early Fathers.

... It seems paradoxical: if Fathers such as Clement of Alexandria are approving of the document, what exactly determined a "book of the Church."

The canons of the councils of Hippo and Carthage were accepted by various canons of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. There are also other canons and writings (accepted by one or more of the Seven Councils) which put forth a canon of scripture, including Canon 85 of the Canons of the Holy Apostles (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xvii.iv.html), a writing of Gregory the Theologian (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xvii.xxii.html), an epistle of Athanasius (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xvii.ix.html), and Canon 60 of Laodicea (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.viii.vii.iii.lxv.html) (all accepted in Canon 2 of Trullo (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xiv.iii.ii.html?highlight=apostles,laodice a,theologus#highlight)).

As for the other question - I'm not sure what you mean by a "book of the Church". Athanasius' epistle noted above mentioned two classes of writings: canonical Scripture; and non-canonical books "established by the Fathers." The latter were "... to be read by those who have just come to us and wish to be instructed in the doctrine of piety", but were not considered part of the Canon.

There are of course some wrinkles in there (the Revelation is only included in some lists; Esther is sometimes in the Canon, sometimes approved but not canonical; etc.).

In Christ,
Mike

[Olga]

Hello Mike

The Greek Septuagint contains the Book of Esther.

[Michael Stickles]

The Greek Septuagint contains the Book of Esther.

I know - I was just referring to the canons and writings accepted by the Councils. Esther is included in the lists given in canon 85 of the Apostles, canon 24 (27) of Carthage, and canon 60 of Laodicea, but is excluded by the list of St. Gregory. Athanasius' epistle lists it among the books not edited in the Canon, but established by the Fathers and useful for instructing catechumens. Some other books included in the Septuagint had similar disparate treatments (such as Judith).

Mike