Revised Orthodox Catechism - Canon of Scripture

[Byzman]

This is an excerpt from the new “Revised and Expanded Catechism of the Orthodox Faith” that will be coming out later this year. This excerpt is regarding the “Canonical” and the “Deuterocanonical” books of Scripture.

1. How many are the canonical books of the Old Testament?

St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Athanasius the Great, and St. John Damascene reckon them at 22 (by grouping books together), which is a symbolic number because the Hebrew language had 22 letters. In current practice, there are 39 canonical books and several deuterocanonical books which will be listed and explained below. All of these books, together with the 27 books of the New Testament, form the corpus of the Bible. All of these books are needed and useful to equip Christians to understand, proclaim and live the saving Gospel.

1. Why should Christians pay attention to the reckoning of the Jews?

For two reasons: One, because, as the Apostle Paul says that “unto them were committed the oracles of God.” (Romans 3:2) Secondly, we must remember that the primary role of the Holy Scripture is to bear witness to Jesus Christ as Messiah, Lord and Savior. As the Lord himself said: You search the scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that testify on my behalf. (John 5:39) In the image of a court of law, the witnesses that are brought forward should be credible by all parties involved. However, when Christians bring certain writings ‘to the bar’ as witnesses, they realize that some of these writings are not considered as authoritative by the other side, in this case the Jews (also in recent times Protestants). For this reason, Orthodox Christians, especially since St Athanasius, have realized that there are two levels of authority among the sacred writings: those that are recognized by the Jews (“canonical”) and those who are received and used in the life of the Church (“ecclesiastical,” “deuterocanonical”).

Orthodox Bibles always contain the “canonical” and “deuterocanonical” books of the Old Testament because all are needed to rightly understand the Scriptures and be fully equipped in the Church. Orthodox Christians are aware of the difference in witnessing authority between the “canonical” and “deuterocanonical” books of the Old Testament. Sometimes, the “deuterocanonical” are called “canonical” in the sense that they belong to the corpus of the Holy Scriptures, not in the sense that they have the same level of authority as those who are undisputed. The Pan-Orthodox council of Jassy (1642confirmed that these books are “genuine parts of scripture.” The Orthodox meaning of “deuterocanonical” is somewhat different from its use in Roman Catholicism. In Orthodoxy, “deuterocanonical” means included in the Bible since the beginning as part of the Septuagint but of lesser authority. In Roman Catholicism, “deuterocanonical” means confirmed in the canon at a later time (in a “second” phase) but of the same authority. It may be said that the issue of the exact text of the Old Testament is not and need not be fully and perfectly settled. The points of discussion (exact reading for a number of passages where the LXX and Hebrew differ), inclusion of certain “deuterocanonical” texts such as 3 Maccabees have no bearing on the deposit of the Christian Faith. These books are helpful but do not determine or affect Christian doctrine. Likewise, the minor variants found in the New Testament are interesting to consider but likewise, they do not determine or affect Christian doctrine.

1. In the lists provided by such authories as St Cyril, St Athanasius or St John of Damascus, why is there no notice taken in this enumeration of the books of the Old Testament of the book of the Wisdom of the son of Sirach, and of certain others?

As we have seen, these Fathers were concerned to attend to the Jewish reception of certain books as authoritative (and rejection of others as non-authoritative) so that a common basis could exist for reference to the Old Testament.

1. How are we to regard these last‐named books?

The following books are called “deuterocanonical,” “anaginoskomena (to be read),” or “ecclesiastical.” The council of Jassy (1642) confirmed that these books are “genuine parts of scripture.” They are: Judith, 1 Esdras, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, 3 Maccabees, Tobit, Ecclesiasticus (Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach), Wisdom of Solomon, Baruch and Letter of Jeremiah. The LXX editions of Esther and Daniel also contain additional material. Mention should also be made of Psalm 151 and of the Prayer of Manesseh (or Manasses). Please note that 4 Maccabees may be included as an Appendix. These books are part of the sacred heritage of the Church. In the life of Church where the Spirit is the guide and revealer of truth, Orthodox Christians find spiritually encouraging and indispensable information. Wisdom of Solomon, for instance, contains a powerful and inspired testimony to the passion of the Lord…

orthodox-church.info/catechismorthodoxchurch/

I think this is an interesting take on the Canon of Scripture, most especially in regards to the authority of the Deuterocanonical Books. The Catechism does seem to portray what the Fathers have said in regards to these books. I was wondering what others on this thread think about this, considering there is always debates on here as to what Byzantine Catholics, or other Churches in the Eastern Church use for their Scriptures.

 

[Byzman]

This is an excerpt from the new “Revised and Expanded Catechism of the Orthodox Faith” that will be coming out later this year. This excerpt is regarding the “Canonical” and the “Deuterocanonical” books of Scripture.

orthodox-church.info/catechismorthodoxchurch/

I think this is an interesting take on the Canon of Scripture, most especially in regards to the authority of the Deuterocanonical Books. The Catechism does seem to portray what the Fathers have said in regards to these books. I was wondering what others on this thread think about this, considering there is always debates on here as to what Byzantine Catholics, or other Churches in the Eastern Church use for their Scriptures.

Anyone? I was wondering what people thought, most especially in regards to this idea of a lesser authority for the Deuterocanonicals.

 

[frnate]

Interesting. What I am more curious about is whether this new catechism and it’s creators are or will be recognized by SCOBA.

++N

 

[Alexander_Roman]

And if it is, then we might refer to it as a type of “SCOBA gear . . .”

Sorry . . .

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

This is an excerpt from the new “Revised and Expanded Catechism of the Orthodox Faith” that will be coming out later this year. This excerpt is regarding the “Canonical” and the “Deuterocanonical” books of Scripture.

orthodox-church.info/catechismorthodoxchurch/

I think this is an interesting take on the Canon of Scripture, most especially in regards to the authority of the Deuterocanonical Books. The Catechism does seem to portray what the Fathers have said in regards to these books. I was wondering what others on this thread think about this, considering there is always debates on here as to what Byzantine Catholics, or other Churches in the Eastern Church use for their Scriptures.

Given that these books are used liturgically in the Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches, what does this distinction in terms of “authority” really amount to? Psalm 151 is never “read in Church” but privately for example. Also, we should also remember that while the Book of Revelation is an authoritative part of the NT in the Eastern Churches, it is never read publicly.

Again, I have a Ukrainian language Orthodox Bible published in Ukraine (that does not have Maccabees IV in any appendix) that has the additional “Imprimaturs” of the Ukrainian Catholic and Roman Catholic primates.

“Deuterocanonical” does not mean the books are not inspired but how one determines how much inspiration etc. would probably turn one into a scholastic theologian. . .

Alex

 

[josephdaniel29]

Interesting. What I am more curious about is whether this new catechism and it’s creators are or will be recognized by SCOBA.

++N

And if it is, then we might refer to it as a type of “SCOBA gear . . .”

Sorry . . .

Alex

My friends SCOBA will not be recognizing anything as it no longer exists. All of its functions and agencies have been assumed by the Episcopal Assembly.

 

[mardukm]

I found the following statement form the Orthodox Catechism interesting:

Sometimes, the “deuterocanonical” are called “canonical” in the sense that they belong to the corpus of the Holy Scriptures, not in the sense that they have the same level of authority as those who are undisputed.

I studied this topic extensively in my journey to the Catholic Church. The term “Deuterocanonical” in Catholic jargon refers only to the time that the books were formally canonized (i.e., it was later than the protocanon). In fact, even the New Testament has its own set of deuterocanonical books (i.e., Revelation, many of the catholic epistles, and some of Paul’s epistles). It has no relation to the level of authority. Both the protocanonical and deuterocanonical books are of equal authority in the Catholic Church.

I always thought it was the same in the Eastern Orthodox Churches, but the statement above would indicate otherwise. Interesting.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Byzman]

Exactly! It is very interesting on their perspective of the authority of the deuterocanonical books. What I was thinking though is that they do have a pretty good argument as to the idea of not using them…the whole example of being in court and having witnesses that both parties can agree as being credible…this does seem to line up with the fathers not having them in their canon…yet still using and calling them Scripture.