The Old Testament in Eastern Orthodox Tradition
Tl;dr / Summary
Questions
Brief outline of the work by chapter
Part 1: Reception
1 One Bible, Two Covenants
Epigraph:
The Law and the Prophets, the Church unites in one volume with the writings of the evangelists and apostles, from which she drinks her faith. —Tertullian —The Prescription against Heretics 36
Using the Pantocrater icon on Mt Sinai as a launching point and example, Pentiuc discusses the multifaceted but unfragmented nature of the Scriptures.
“Eastern Orthodox tradition has always promoted and embodied, since apostolic times, the understanding that Scripture may be interpreted and transmitted not only by the written or uttered word, but also through various channels of communal worship (i.e., aural, visual, ascetic), often labeled generically as Holy Tradition.” p. 9
This sentence rather nicely summarizes the outline of the book. Pentiuc discusses the emergence of Christian writing and how they come from the Church reflecting upon the Resurrection of Christ.
“The resurrection … became the interpretive prism through which Jesus’s unique profile came to be reevaluated.” p. 11
Preaching Christ crucified and resurrected is the central theme of the NT and the Church, and in it is the OT appraised.
Christian Appropriation of the Jewish Scriptures p 16.
While I appreciate the work as a whole. I find Pentiuc’s term appropriation inappropriate. Early Christians did not take the Scriptures to themselves; early Christianity originated within 2nd Temple Judaism and inherited the Scriptures. Also stating the “mainstream ‘orthodox’ or ‘catholic’ segment, viewed the Scriptures as ‘proof-texts’ able to demonstrate the messiahship of Jesus of Nazareth” seems to simplify the matter. This section is a weak point in Pentiuc’s work. He goes on to show many wonderful and complex ways the Church reveres and uses the OT, but the introduction to this section does not show it. The section does expand into how the various early churchmen used the OT and even that shows it’s more complex than ‘proof-texting’.
The Christian Bible Unity in Diversity
Pentiuc rightly laments that scholasticism today has divided the Old and New testaments from each other, where OT scholars rarely consult with NT scholars and vice versa. This is not how the Church has received the Scriptures as one Bible. Christ is both the prime author of both testaments and who they speak about.
2 Text
Epigraph:
So earnest and assiduous was Origen’s research into the divine words that he learned the Hebrew language, and procured as his own the original Hebrew Scriptures which were in the hands of the Jews. He investigated also the works of other translators of the Sacred Scriptures besides the Seventy. —Eusebius —Ecclesiastical History 6.16.1
In this chapter, Pentiuc goes through the various textual sources of the OT canon. While the Greek was used as primary, it was not to the exclusion of the the other sources. While the LXX is the ‘Bible of the Church’, it “the Septuagint has never reached the level of canonical authority in Eastern Orthodoxy enjoyed by the Vulgate in the Roman Catholic Church prior to the Second Vatican Council.”
3 Canon
Epigraph:
Learn diligently, and from the Church, what are the books of the Old Testament, and what those of the New. And, please, read none of the apocryphal writings. For why you, who do not know those which are acknowledged among all, trouble yourself in vain about those which are disputed? Read the divine Scriptures, the twenty-two books of the Old Testament, these that have been translated by the Seventy-two Interpreters.” — Cyril of Jerusalem —Lecture 4: Of the Divine Scriptures 33
Pentiuc states “It is not the purpose of this chapter to offer an exhaustive treatment of the problem of biblical canon. Rather, I want merely to situate this topic within the Eastern Orthodox tradition while reflecting on some of its similarities and differences with Jewish views and Western Christian stances.” In this chapter he primary addresses the role of the Duetrerocoanonical / books.
The Church holds in tension the relation of the Dueterocanonical books to the primary (narrow) canon. This tension is between ‘formative’ and ‘informative’ view of Scripture. This tension contrasts with some Orthodox teachers today who seek to resolve this tension in various ways.
In a nutshell, the tendencies toward a shorter or wider scriptural corpus have stood always in dialectical tension. This tension, well attested in the ancient writers examined below, is still present in modern Eastern Orthodox theologians, who may argue for either of the two tendencies without any interference from church authority, which has never defined its official position on the scriptural canon in any ecumenical or Pan-Orthodox council. The present work identifies what may be called the “official” Eastern Orthodox position as located precisely at this point of tension, thus maintaining the balance between “formative” and “informative” tendencies in approaching the Scripture.
As Petros Vasiliadis reminds us, early Christians received the Scripture in the Church, in relation to Eucharist:
The Church told them what Scripture was. In the first three centuries of Christian history a lengthy process of testing was needed in order to distinguish between those books which were authentically “canonical” Scripture, bearing authoritative witness to the Church’s self-understanding, and above all to Christ’s person and message; and those which were “apocryphal,” useful perhaps for teaching, but not a normative source of doctrine. Thus, it was the Church (in her ecclesial rather than institutional form) that had decided which books would form the Canon of the New Testament. A book is part of Holy Scripture not because of any particular theory about its date and authorship, but because the Church had treated it as canonical; it is debatable whether that treatment was juridical, i.e. through a proper conciliar process, or experiential, i.e. “Eucharistic” in the above mentioned sense.
4 Tradition
Epigraph:
Let the inspired Scripture be our arbiter (diaitēsatō), and the sentence (psēphos) of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the divine words. — Gregory of Nyssa —On the Holy Trinity, and of the Godhead of the Holy Spirit: To Eustathius
Longer Outline of work with review of each chapter
This section was written rather hastily and draws in many quotations from the book. The summary is found above, but this section attempts to go through the major sections of each chapter in a little detail.
Part 1: Reception
1 One Bible, Two Covenants
Epigraph:
The Law and the Prophets, the Church unites in one volume with the writings of the evangelists and apostles, from which she drinks her faith. —Tertullian — The Prescription against Heretics 36*
Using the Pantocrater icon on Mt Sinai as a launching point and example, Pentiuc discusses the multifaceted but unfragmented nature of the Scriptures.
“Eastern Orthodox tradition has always promoted and embodied, since apostolic times, the understanding that Scripture may be interpreted and transmitted not only by the written or uttered word, but also through various channels of communal worship (i.e., aural, visual, ascetic), often labeled generically as Holy Tradition.” p. 9
This sentence rather nicely summarizes the outline of the book.
He discusses the emergence of Christian writing and how they come from the Church reflecting upon the Resurrection of Christ.
“The resurrection … became the interpretive prism through which Jesus’s unique profile came to be reevaluated.” p. 11
Preaching Christ crucified and resurrected is the central theme of the NT and the Church, and in it is the OT appraised.
Christian Appropriation of the Jewish Scriptures p 16.
I find Pentiuc’s term appropriation inappropriate. Early Christians did not take the Scriptures to themselves; early Christianity originated within 2nd Temple Judaism and inherited the Scriptures. Also stating the “mainstream ‘orthodox’ or ‘catholic’ segment, viewed the Scriptures as ‘proof-texts’ able to demonstrate the messiahship of Jesus of Nazareth” seems to simplify the matter. This section is a weak point in Pentiuc’s work. He goes on to show many wonderful and complex ways the Church reveres and uses the OT, but the introduction to this section does not show it. The section does expand into how the various early churchmen used the OT and even that shows it’s more complex than ‘proof-texting’.
The next two sections deal with various heretical view of the Scriptures from the disregard of Marcion and Gnostics, to the ‘overestimation’ of the Judaizers and Pelagians.
Juxtaposition of Old and New Testaments p. 39
This section seems to be mostly about Jewish-Christian relations and Scriptural supersession. Pentiuc further fleshes out some of his ideas from the Appropriation section. It also appears that there is a bit of unstated assumption that today’s Judaism is the same as it was in the 1st Century. (Of course, I imagine Pentiuc would deny that if asked outright, but it seems not to be fully examined here.) He does discuss continuities and discontinuities in the covenants and how they were viewed by early Christians.
The Christian Bible Unity in Diversity
Pentiuc laments that scholasticism today has divided the Old and New testaments from each other, where OT scholars rarely consult with NT scholars and vice versa. This is not how the Church has received the Scriptures as one Bible. Christ is both the prime author of both testaments and who they speak about.
2 Text
Epigraph:
So earnest and assiduous was Origen’s research into the divine words that he learned the Hebrew language, and procured as his own the original Hebrew Scriptures which were in the hands of the Jews. He investigated also the works of other translators of the Sacred Scriptures besides the Seventy. —Eusebius —Ecclesiastical History 6.16.1*
In this chapter, Pentiuc goes through the various textual sources of the OT canon. While the Greek was used as primary, it was not to the exclusion of the the other sources. While the LXX is the ‘Bible of the Church’, it “the Septuagint has never reached the level of canonical authority in Eastern Orthodoxy enjoyed by the Vulgate in the Roman Catholic Church prior to the Second Vatican Council.”
“The flurry of early translations (Syriac, Coptic, then Gothic and Armenian in the fourth century, Ethiopic and Georgian in the fifth century) following the appropriation of the Old Greek Bible by the early Church shows that the association of Christianity with Greek as its acred or original language occurred later, during the fourth century, when the Church came to be associated with the empire and its capital Constantinople, the New Rome.”
Hebrew Text
3 periods
- beginnings of Proto-MT to destruction of 2nd Temple (70 CE), standardization
- 70 CE to 8th cent. higher degree of textual conistency
- Masoretic (Rabbinical Judaism considers MT the org text, but historically not the case)\
Pentiuc gives more info on various Hebrew textual variants
Greek Text
Lxx not the text Jesus and immediate disciples knew (could use more citation/explanation). LXX used alongside proclamation of Gospel outside of Palestine.
LXX a family of documents. Yet LXX is the Pentetuch/Torah, OG (Old Greek) best for whole OT.
Pentiuc recounts the the history of the LXX.
“Regarding the use of LXX by the New Testament writings, the closest quotations appear in the Gospel of John, Luke-Acts, and the catholic epistles. Many of the non-LXX quotations are closer to MT and this situation obtains especially with those texts where LXX and MT presuppose two different Vorlage’s. In these cases, the likelihood is that the New Testament author quoted from proto-Theodotion a revision of the LXX (first century b.c.e.) to bring the latter into literal closeness to the Hebrew text (proto-MT) extant in Palestine at that time. It is commonly accepted that Matthew and Paul quoted extensively from proto-Theodotion and other revisions of the LXX. The similarities between Matthew and Paul and the proto-Theodotion are so visible that the assumption that the two New Testament authors borrowed the Old Testament quotations directly from the Hebrew text or from their own renditions of the Hebrew text into Greek seems quite unlikely.”
Early Church Fathers state LXX older than other Greek translations (Theodotion & Aquila) and preserve the Messianic prophecies better.
A strand of Jewish reception of the LXX after the Christians adopted it:
“The rabbis even established a day (the eighth of Tevet) for fasting and mourning, warning pious Jews of the desecration of the Scriptures by LXX translators. This injunction, which was canceled in the Middle Ages, is however not found in the main sources of Megillat Ta’anit Batra, but in a late addition to the scroll. Moreover, the post-Talmudic text from the tractate Soferim speaks of the LXX making in terms of the building of the golden calf (Exod 32): “It happened once that five elders wrote the Torah for king Ptolemy in Greek, and that day was ominous for Israel as the day when which the golden calf was made, since the Torah could not be accurately translated” (Sof. 1.7).”
Other Witnesses
Samaritian Pentateuch
In Paelo-hebrew script.
Peshitta
Syriac translation
Old Latin (Vetus Latina) & Vulgate
Information mostly on the translations into Latin.
Targums
Seems less relevant to the Church, except mabye a Targum on Job used at the time of Gamaliel the Elder.
Authority of the LXX
Pentiuc gives examples of the Church’s reception of the LXX. Debate in 1600s in reaction to Reformation about if Gk or Hb should be primary.
The Rudder argues for the LXX and Peshitta, but glosses over difficulties concerning Targums and Theodotion’s translation of Daniel.
Discussion of a different Vorlage of the LXX vs MT, and layers of text.
Eastern Orthodox Views on Hebrew Text
“In general lines, the Eastern Orthodox Church is not against the use of Hebrew text. Nonetheless, with few exceptions, Eastern Christian writers, ancient and modern, have accorded minimal attention to the Hebrew textual witness.”
“In his Second Homily on the Obscurity of the Old Testament, John Chrysostom notices the insurmountable difficulties each translation carries with it:
What, then, is the second reason why the Old Testament is more difficult than the New? We do not have the Old Testament written for us in our native tongue: while it was composed in one language, we have it read in another language. That it is to say, it was written originally in the Hebrew tongue, whereas we received it in the language of the Greeks, and whenever a language is rendered into another language, it involves great difficulty. All who are versed in many languages are aware of this, how it is not possible to transfer the clarity naturally contained in the words when moving to another language.
The Greek translation, concludes Chrysostom, as imperfect as any translation may seem, has been the main means through which those from nations came to adore Christ.”
“In conclusion, in the case of text, as in that of canon, Eastern Orthodox tradition shows a high degree of flexibility. On the one hand, there is a sort of continuity in the usage of the same textual witness, the LXX, that has become the most emblematic biblical text for ancient and modern Eastern Orthodox interpreters and theologians. On the other hand, there is no hindrance at all from church authority over the use of Hebrew or other textual witnesses. Nevertheless, I would like to see within the Eastern Orthodox tradition more concrete steps in raising the awareness of the exegetical and theological value of the MT in conjunction with Q [Dead Sea Scrolls], Sam., S [Peshitta], just to mention a few of the precious textual witnesses. I am dreaming of a day, and hope that this will happen sooner than later, when Philo’s appeal to his readers will become a reality and those seeking God’s word in Scripture will hold both versions, Hebrew and Greek, in “reverence as sisters” (Life of Moses 2.40).“
3 Canon
Epigraph:
Learn diligently, and from the Church, what are the books of the Old Testament, and what those of the New. And, please, read none of the apocryphal writings. For why you, who do not know those which are acknowledged among all, trouble yourself in vain about those which are disputed? Read the divine Scriptures, the twenty-two books of the Old Testament, these that have been translated by the Seventy-two Interpreters.” — Cyril of Jerusalem —Lecture 4: Of the Divine Scriptures 33*
Pentiuc states “It is not the purpose of this chapter to offer an exhaustive treatment of the problem of biblical canon. Rather, I want merely to situate this topic within the Eastern Orthodox tradition while reflecting on some of its similarities and differences with Jewish views and Western Christian stances.”
Toward Scriptural Canonization
Canon & its meanings
canon <- kanōn (Gk) <- qāneh (Hb) <- qanūm (Akkadian)
“Philosophizing on the whole rule (kanona) of philosophy.” 4 Macc 7.21
First use for the ‘rule of faith’ ‘kanōn tēs pisteōs’ tied to the baptismal creed.
For Clement of Alexandria, the kanōn ekklesiastikos, “ecclesiastical rule,” is the exposition of the Scriptures as interpreted by Christ. Further, it is “the unity and harmony of the Law and the Prophets with the covenant delivered at the coming of the Lord” (Stromata 6.15).
Origen is the first among early Christian authors for whom “canon” is not as definite as the baptismal creed but rather a metaphor for the general faith held by orthodox Christians. The ideal reader of Scripture is the one who always holds fast to the “rule of the heavenly church” (kanonos tēs ouranious ekklēsias) (On the Principles 4.2.2).
Not until late 4th cent. did Christian writers use it for the Scriptures.
The making of the Jewish Scripture
3 parts and stages
- Torah
- Prophets
- Writings
Note prologue of Sirach
Jewish canon not fully decided until after 1st cent. Esther and Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes were debated.
Came to 22 books (one for each Hebrew letter) though some numbered the same books differently.
According to Mogens Müller, the formation of the Old Testament canon was fixed at the time of the New Testament. The proof for such a suggestion is found in the New Testament itself. Note the text of Matt 23:35 mentioning the blood of Abel up to the blood of Zacharias, the son of Berachias. These names and examples are taken from the first and last books of the Jewish Bible, Genesis (4) and 2 Chronicles (24:20–22), assuming that Zacharias is the son of Jehoiadah. Thus, the New Testament text witnesses to a canonical sequence that appears only later on in the Jewish Bible: beginning with Genesis and ending with 2 Chronicles. It is important to note here too that the New Testament distinguishes quite regularly between canonical and noncanonical by introducing the canonical books with the qualifier “Scripture” or the technical formula “It is written.”
An interesting assumption as the Zachariases don’t have the same name for their father, and in the age of scrolls, maybe the order of books wasn’t exactly established.
Prerequisites and Criteria of Scriptural Canonization
Authorship. The anonymity of ancient world and the “corporate mentality” of Semitic culture were challenged with the birth of Christian Gentile Church in the desire to name the author of a given writing.
But a bit more nuanced as Pentiuc goes on to explain.
Cataloging A trend of libraries and other repositories cataloging their collection.
Codex vs Scroll An necessary step in canonization as books could be bound between two covers in a single volume and sequenced within. The codex was adopted very early in Christianity.
Early views on the canon
“From the onset, it must be underscored that the notion of canon is often used with no rigor at all, and merely out of sheer convenience.”
Why the current situation with narrow, larger, and in-between canons? It is the argument of this chapter that the answer is to be found in the additions to the Septuagint and within the Jewish Bible itself—more precisely, in the early, second century b.c.e. tripartite division of the Jewish Bible. This argument is based on the assumption that there has always been a tension between two important and early well-defined divisions (sections): the Torah (Law) and the Prophets. In addition, one may detect a certain delay in defining or labeling the third division (attested with a technical term, Kethubim [“Writings”], as early as the third century c.e.). This delay left the third group of books, termed variously, “the other,” “the remaining books,” as the “open” end of the Scriptures, offering an indirect invitation to other “outside” books to join on various degrees the “canonical” (normative) chorus of Scripture.
So the Church holds in tension the relation of the Dueterocanonical books to the primary (narrow) canon. This contrasts with some Orthodox teachers today who seek to resolve this tension in various ways.
Before we get to the larger canon Pentiuc describes the tension between the ‘formative’ and ‘informative’ views of Scripture centered on the Torah and the Prophets respectively.
In a nutshell, the tendencies toward a shorter or wider scriptural corpus have stood always in dialectical tension. This tension, well attested in the ancient writers examined below, is still present in modern Eastern Orthodox theologians, who may argue for either of the two tendencies without any interference from church authority, which has never defined its official position on the scriptural canon in any ecumenical or Pan-Orthodox council. The present work identifies what may be called the “official” Eastern Orthodox position as located precisely at this point of tension, thus maintaining the balance between “formative” and “informative” tendencies in approaching the Scripture.
Sirach
Describes canon in 3 parts as noted already. But the introduction to Sirach (written in Greek) places the book of Sirach in the Writings as another book forming readers to live within the Torah.
Philo of Alexandria
Sor of a middle place in the canon, the Writings are flexible, but he doesn’t cite the LXX additions.
Flavius Josephus
Names the books of the canon, and only includes the narrow canon. He seeks to set an ending point for revelation (Artaxerxes, mid 5th cent BCE) but ‘by defining the third part as containing “precepts of life for human beings,” Josephus prepared the way for later Christian views regarding the normativeness or quasi-canonicity of the additions to the Septuagint.’
An interesting question not addressed is the time of writing of Daniel’s prophecy. (Presumably Josephus thought it was written early)
Justin Martyr
Having noticed the difference in Scriptures between Judaism and Christian Church, Justin Martyr is the first author to suggest the principle of Church’s “self-sufficiency” in determining her Scripture (or canon in a broader sense).
Justin writes everything is subordinated to the Gospel. So the whole OT is subordinate to the New. Therefore other instructional books of rules are ‘invited to return from exile and join the educational chorus of Jewish Scriptures, now under the Church’s roof’
Melito of Sardis
Melito the first author to use ‘Old Testament’. However does not use ‘New Testament’ as likely incipit at this time. Pentiuc discusses Melito’s inclusion of Wisdom of Solomon perhaps indicates there was not a division between Palestinian and Alexandrian canons.
Origen
Origen mentions the 22 books of the hebrew scriptures, but often has them in the LXX order. Also he mentions the ‘outside’ books for the LXX additions.
Athanasius of Alexandria
St Athanasius distinguishes between 3 groups of books:
- Canon
- Readable (anaginōskomena)
- Apocrypha
St Athanasius’ Apocrypha is different than Origen’s. While apocrypha for Origin was difficult canonized books to be ‘kept away from unprepared readers’, Athanasius consigned them to the heretics.
St Athanasius gives the canonized forms the ‘informative’ function, but the readables the ‘formative’ function for catechumens and newly baptized.
Interestingly Esther was placed in the readables between Sirach and Judith (Athanasius also separated the readables from the canonical scriptures unlike the LXX where they were intercalated).
With this last warning, Athanasius inclines toward a “closed” list (canon) regarding the Jewish Scripture. His position is quite articulate within an Eastern Christian context marked by discrepancy between practice (most Eastern fathers quote extensively from the noncanonicals) and theory (none of these fathers dared declare the noncanonicals on par with the canonical books appropriated from the Jewish Scripture).
Cyril of Jerusalem
St Cyril is the first to divide the OT into 4 sections. Law, history, prophets, and verse. Cyril uses apocrypha for Athanasius’ anaginōskomena but his division is not the same as the Hebrew Bible for he includes the Additions to Jeremiah. He argues Christians should not read the apocrypha, but only indirectly includes the LXX additions as apocrypha.
Epiphanius of Salamis
Epiphanius has 3 lists about canon:
-
27 books, (22 Hebrew letters + 5 final forms) of Hebrew. Wisdom and Sirach are among the disputed (amphiektōn) books distinguished from the apocrypha. Epistle of Jeremiah and Baruch listed with canonical works of Jeremiah.
-
Might place Sirach and Wisdom among the ‘divine writings’, but hard to parse.
-
22 books, Ezra-Nehemiah (2 Ezra/Esdras B?) left behind.
Council of Laodicea (ca. 363 CE)
Confirms only canonical works may be read in the Church. Canon 60 (of doubtful genuineness) list the Law, History, Poetry, and Prophecy categories. Baruch and Epistle of Jeremiah are considered canonical. Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, and Revelation are omitted.
Echos St Athanasius’ categories: canonical, readable, apocrypha (forbidden). Laodicea a local council but canons approved by Trullo, which was given ‘quasi-ecumenical status’ in the Fifth-Sixth Council.
Synod of Rome (Pope Damasus I) approved additions to Lxx in approved works. Other synods approved other lists.
St Jerome famously thought the additions the the LXX were apocryphal but still translated them for the Vulgate.
Amphilochius of Iconium
Amphilochius distinguishes between Scripture and canon. Canonical equated with Rabbinic Bible.
Gregory Nazianzus
Gregory has a more extreme view with little place for the additions to the LXX, also reworks the categories of the text, including the Torah as part of the histories.
John of Damascus
Exact Exposition of Faith doesn’t mention the Jeremiah adjacent books and mentions the Wisdoms as ‘virtuous and noble’.
After the First Millennium
The Reformers
The Reformers simplified the tension of the position of the additions to the LXX by labeling them ‘apocrypha’ and removing them from the Scriptures.
Luther kept them in a marginal place (between the Testaments) but the Reformed (Calvinist) wing rejected them altogether. The Anglicans declared ‘the Septuagint additions may be read “for example of life and instruction of manners,” but should not be utilized for “establishing doctrine.”’
However, today the Protestants embrace a more accepting attitude of the LXX additions for their historical value and incipient themes found in NT theology.
Tridentine Roman Catholic Views
In response to the Protestants the Romans officially adopted the wider canon. And confirmed the Vulgate as the specific text.
Eastern Orthodox Approaches
Various EO approached the canon in various ways, as the terminology was vague before the Reformation.
John Meyendorff notices:
In spite of the fact that Byzantine patristic and ecclesiastical tradition almost exclusively uses the Septuagint as the standard Biblical text and that parts of the “longer” canon especially Wisdom are of frequent liturgical use Byzantine theologians remain faithful to a “Hebrew” criterion for Old Testament literature, which excludes texts originally composed in Greek. Modern Orthodox theology is consistent with this unresolved polarity when it distinguishes between “canonical” and “deuterocanonical” literature of the Old Testament, applying the first term only to the books of the “shorter” canon.
Speaking of the “openness” of the canon in the Orthodox Church, Savvas Agouridis remarks that Holy Scripture is not law but “witness,” and its writers are not legislators but “witnesses.” If for instance an archaeological pickaxe were to uncover an authentic epistle of Paul the Apostle, no one would imagine excluding it from the canon. Neither is there the least doubt that the discovery of new texts from early Christianity would pose any problem whatsoever regarding the essence of faith. Through such a new possession our knowledge and spiritual experience would simply be enriched in a truly authentic and genuine way.
The Notion of Authority
Liturgical Use
As Petros Vasiliadis reminds us, early Christians received the Scripture in the Church, in relation to Eucharist:
The Church told them what Scripture was. In the first three centuries of Christian history a lengthy process of testing was needed in order to distinguish between those books which were authentically “canonical” Scripture, bearing authoritative witness to the Church’s self-understanding, and above all to Christ’s person and message; and those which were “apocryphal,” useful perhaps for teaching, but not a normative source of doctrine. Thus, it was the Church (in her ecclesial rather than institutional form) that had decided which books would form the Canon of the New Testament. A book is part of Holy Scripture not because of any particular theory about its date and authorship, but because the Church had treated it as canonical; it is debatable whether that treatment was juridical, i.e. through a proper conciliar process, or experiential, i.e. “Eucharistic” in the above mentioned sense.
In conclusion there is tension in the Church between the larger and shorter canons.
4 Tradition
Epigraph:
Let the inspired Scripture be our arbiter (diaitēsatō), and the sentence (psēphos) of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the divine words. — Gregory of Nyssa —On the Holy Trinity, and of the Godhead of the Holy Spirit: To Eustathius
3 ways of looking at the relation of Scripture and Tradition:
- 2 Sources — Scripture and Tradition — older Roman sources
- Scripture Alone — Protestants
- Scripture within Tradition — Patristic View
If Tradition is conceived as the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church, Scripture might be imagined as the Church’s pulsating heart, always radiating life and sustenance to the members of the body, always challenging it to dialogue with the living Word of God. Aural, visual, and discursive interpretations [note chapter titles of the second half of this work] elaborated throughout the time are the fruit of this dynamic dialogue between the Word and its followers within the wide and multifaceted context of Church’s life.