Methods of scriptural and patristic reading

[Francis Mathew]

Reverend Sirs, Ladies and Gentlemen of this forum,

Forgive me in presuming to post a new thread. I am a new member from the Roman Church, seriously considering to follow the path of Orthodoxy.

I was first introduced to Orthodoxy by my high-school Maths Tutor who was a rumanian orthodox lady. She lent me some books, among which the letters of a Valaam Starets which has left a definite impression on my life. She also introduced me to the Akathist Hymn which has since considerably enriched my spiritual life.

I have also bought the first volume of the Philokalia and a prayer book. Now my question is:

In what way, order,with what disposition should i read the Scriptures and the Fathers? Do the Orthodox have a peculiar way of reading the same? If so, what would the reverend Fathers advise me, and what counsels would the fellow lay-members give me?

Thanking you in advance,

Francis Mathew

[Michael Stickles]

In what way, order,with what disposition should i read the Scriptures and the Fathers? Do the Orthodox have a peculiar way of reading the same? If so, what would the reverend Fathers advise me, and what counsels would the fellow lay-members give me?

For practical notes on reading the Scriptures, I would suggest the article "How to Read the Bible (http://www.oca.org/Docs.asp?ID=180&SID=2)" by Bishop Kallistos of Diokleia.

For the order of reading, a good way to start is to follow the daily readings of the Church. Many of the Orthodox jurisdictions have the daily readings posted on their websites (I use the OCA website's Scripture Readings page (http://www.oca.org/Reading.asp?SID=25) for this). This will get you through all of the New Testament (except Revelation and a handful of other verses), but only a small part of the Old Testament. For the Old Testament and Deuterocanonical books, there are various reading plans which can be used (we had a thread on this (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4006) not all that long ago, which has links to some online reading plans).

A few threads here have dealt with suggested reading lists for those new to, or just interested in, Orthodoxy - "Looking for some books (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=2128)" and "Initial texts on Orthodoxy (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=2557)" are two of them. Also, Ss. Peter and Paul Antiochian Orthodox Church has an online recommended reading list (http://www.peterandpaul.net/suggestedreadings.htm) which, though not specifically for beginners, does mark some books as recommended for catechetical purposes (some are specifically recommended for certain groups of seekers - Evangelicals, Catholics, women, agnostics, etc.).

Hope that helps!

In Christ,
Mike

[Michael Stickles]

Almost forgot - several of the discussions mention reading the lives of the saints, and the recent thread "Recommended lives of the fathers (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=5025)" contains a number of suggestions for good collections of such stories.

In Christ,
Mike

[Francis Mathew]

Thank so much for the wealth of links. The article of Bishop Kallistos Ware is indeed very interesting, with the fourfold approach to Scripture.

Also may i know of all the Apocryphas and Pseudepigraphia which ones are received into the Orthodox biblical canon.I've got a Revised Version of Scripture with the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonicals. Are Orthodox allowed to read such bibles(in this case, Anglican)?

Your servant,

Francis Mathew

[Michael Stickles]

Also may i know of all the Apocryphas and Pseudepigraphia which ones are received into the Orthodox biblical canon. I've got a Revised Version of Scripture with the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonicals. Are Orthodox allowed to read such bibles(in this case, Anglican)?

I certainly hope so, since I have a Catholic edition RSV myself :-).

As for which books, OrthodoxWiki's Holy Scripture (http://orthodoxwiki.org/Holy_Scripture) page has a list. Essentially, the Old Testament is that of the Septuagint, and the New Testament is the normal 27 books. I believe the "extra" (or, more properly, "deutero-canonical") books in the O.T. - Tobit, Judith, Baruch, etc. - are technically considered to not be part of the canon, but are still considered edifying reading. I haven't seen total unanimity on that point, admittedly, but it seems to be the most common assertion.

N.T.-era books I've seen in the "edifying reading but not canonical" category are 1 Clement, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, and the Protevangelium of James.

In Christ,
Mike

[Moses Ibrahim]

Go with the Greek Orthodox Old Testament Bar on this link for our Canonical Books: I believe we outdo the Catholic and Protestants in numbers of books. :) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_of_the_Bible)

[Justin]

Also may i know of all the Apocryphas and Pseudepigraphia which ones are received into the Orthodox biblical canon.I've got a Revised Version of Scripture with the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonicals. Are Orthodox allowed to read such bibles(in this case, Anglican)?

A lot of times the Orthodox include the deuterocanonicals in the Bible, but put them on a lower footing. Here are some quotes from Orthodox authors on this:


"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, (Penguin Books, 1997), p. 200


"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


"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

[Rick H.]

I am not sure what the Orthodox position(s) are on the books of the pseudepigraphia , but I would like to know too.

In Christ,
Rick

[Olga]

"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, (Penguin Books, 1997), p. 200


I find this rather interesting, and a little peculiar. With the greatest respect to Met. Kallistos, one book in the deuterocanonical list (or, at least, selections from it), form part of the permanent liturgical readings of the Orthodox Church, namely, the Book of Wisdom. There are many feasts which contain excerpts from this book as the third reading of the three OT readings at Vespers. Therefore I am puzzled at Met. Kallistos' statement that this book "stands on a lower footing than the rest of the OT".

[Francis Mathew]

"But thou sparest all things, because they are thine, O Sovereign Lord, thou lover of men's souls"

Note the kinship with certain Orthodox prayers which end "thou art the Lover of mankind".

Is it a direct reference(in which case another witness to the use of this book in the Church's liturgical life, cf. Mrs Olga's post) or just a coincidence....?

Your servant

[R. T. A. de Vore]

As I am seriously considering a conversion to Eastern Orthodoxy, and insofar as I have great regard for the Deutero-canonical books of Holy Scripture, it is a matter of some concern that I understand the difference between official approval (Synods of Jassy and Jerusalem, e.g.) of the aforementioned books and the practical use of them among Orthodox Christians. Apparently, there is considerable disagreement among contemporary theologians of the Orthodox tradition about the merit of these books, which tends to mirror the divergence of opinions one may encounter among those of the Protestant persuasion. Would it be true, for example, that the Greek Orthodox Church holds these books in higher esteem than do Russian Orthodox? Any guidance that might be provided from members of this discussion community would be sincerely appreciated.

[Olga]

Would it be true, for example, that the Greek Orthodox Church holds these books in higher esteem than do Russian Orthodox?

There is no difference at all in the way the various local Orthodox churches regard Scripture, particularly those books which are directly used liturgically. It should also be remembered that a great many Orthodox prayers are full of references from OT and NT scripture; and the Great Canon of Crete, sung during the first four days of Great Lent, is a veritable tour-de-force of the OT.

Mr de Vore, rest assured that the liturgical and iconographic deposit truly represents the consensus patrum of the Church, irrespective of location or jurisdiction.

[R. T. A. de Vore]

Thank you very much, Olga, for taking the time to clarify this matter for me. I, too, share a profound regard for the consensus patrum of the Church, as it pertains to the Sacred Scriptures in all their canonical integrity: OT Proto-canon, OT Deutero-canon, and NT canon. My brief difficulty revolved about a quotation of Archbishop Chrysostomos and Bishop Auxentios on pages 21 and 22 of Scripture and Tradition, as related by Justin on 06 Nov. of 2008: Greek theological thinkers fully accept the Apocrypha, while some contemporary Russian theologians express reservations about them. If I understand you, perfectly, there is a necessary distinction to be made between opinions held as a minority, theological position and official teaching of the Holy Orthodox Church, true in all climes and times, which reflects the patristic consensus. Even so, I agree with Archbishop Chrysostomos that the Pan-Orthodox Synod of Rhodes (1961) unfortunately lent itself to a certain degree of confusion on this matter, which you have been kind enough to correct for my sake and others who respect the books of our Christian Deutero-canon. Once again, you have my gratitude!