|
|
|
I
like to take this opportunity to welcome you all to our first talk of the
New Season. I’m sure you all had a long and lazy summer; I know I did, but
now its time to return to our studies as it were and fill our minds with
new spiritual knowledge. For the past month I was trying to find a
suitable subject for our first talk, but without success, until a few days
ago I received an email from someone who often writes to me with questions
concerning the Church. Many of his questions and my answers can be found
on the website under the section Questions and Answers. His latest
question struck me as a good subject to begin the new season. He wrote:
“In which way and according to what
criteria was the separation of the canonical from the apocryphal text done
by the fathers? If the apocryphal gospels are not canonical, why did the
Church rely on them to formulate certain feasts of the Mother of God such
as the Dormition and Entry?”
I hope you all
understood the question. He is asking how the church separated the books
of the bible into those which now consist of the canon of the Bible which
are the acceptable books and the apocryphal which are forbidden to be
read. And he is also asking why the Church has used certain of these
apocryphal writing or stories,
which tell of the life of the Mother of God.
His question is very important because during our times a lot has been
said of the apocryphal books especially the book called the Gospel
according to Judas.
What then are
the Apocryphal Books? Apocryphal literally means those that are kept apart
or hidden from the rest of Holy Scripture. There are many apocryphal books
which the church did not include in the canonical list because she
believed they were not authentic or God inspired. Some, like the gospel
according to Judas,
were written by Gnostic heretics. Other writings were
adulterated in places as a way of discrimination against the new Christian
religion that was rapidly growing and taking over the Jewish faith. Some
are said to have been completely written by over-zealous Jews, opposed to
the Christian faith, to discredit and give it a false image.
When we
Orthodox talk about apocryphal books we usually mean the apocryphal New
Testament books. Protestants consider ten of the Old Testament books that
we accept as canonical as Deuterocanonical or apocryphal because they are
not found in the Hebrew version they used for their translation into
English. The Orthodox Church uses the Septuagint version of the Old
Testament,
which not only has more books than the Hebrew version,
but also
varies in certain passages from the books they both share. The Septuagint
version is a translation made from the Hebrew into Greek and was
translated by 72 Jews in Alexandria, Egypt, around 285 B.C. The 72 were
made up by taking 6 scholars (scribes)
from each of the 12 tribes of Israel. It
became the most common used translation amongst the Jews outside of
Palestine and the many references to the Old Testament prophecies found in
the New Testament are quoted from the Septuagint version, showing that
Christ and the Apostles considered it as the most authoritative and
authentic.
In fact, at the time
of Christ and the early Church, Hebrew had long since ceased to be the
commonly spoken language, even among the Jews. Although Jesus understood
Hebrew, He would have spoken Aramaic, the common language of Palestine,
with His disciples. Jesus and His disciples were probably also familiar,
with Greek, the common language of the Roman Empire. Greek was the most
widely spoken and read language of the Empire at large, and that was why
it was necessary for a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament.
The translation was made by Jews for Jews and not by Greeks, who as yet
had no interest in the religious books of the Jews.
But
which of the two is actually the oldest? The Hebrew text at the time of
Christ had been preserved by the rabbis and scribes of Israel. Those who
read today about scriptural manuscripts will come across references made
to the “masoretic” texts, which means the texts of the scribes (who were
known as “masoretes”). In the first century, after the destruction of the
Temple of Jerusalem in 70AD, and the end of the Jewish priesthood, the
authority of the rabbis in Israel became absolute. Before that time the
rabbis occupied a position secondary to the priests. The rabbis and
scribes distrusted anything that was not written in the traditional Hebrew
language, and consequently they rejected the Septuagint text. But the
actual Hebrew manuscripts which formed the basis for the Septuagint
translation three centuries before Christ have been lost. The Orthodox
Church believes that the Hebrew text upon which the Septuagint is based is
actually older and more venerable than the Hebrew text of the scribes.
Though both
the Masoretic text and the Septuagint, are quite similar in many ways,
there are significant differences. These differences can primarily be
summed up by saying that the messianic prophecies (the prophecies
concerning the Messiah) found throughout the Psalms and the prophetic
writings are far more explicit in the Septuagint text than in the
Masoretic text. A careful study of the Psalms will reveal how crucially
different the Septuagint text is in these messianic portions.
For the most
part, translators during and after the Reformation, in an attempt to get
back to what they thought were the roots of the Old Testament text, chose
to use the Hebrew texts of the scribes and rejected the traditional use of
the Septuagint. Therefore the Bibles most commonly available in English
are translations of the Hebrew text of the scribes, not translations of
the Septuagint which is older. The traditional text of the Orthodox
Church, however, whether it be in her singing of the Psalms in worship, or
her study of the Old Testament, is still the text of the early Church: the
Septuagint. But if the
Orthodox Church uses the Septuagint and the Roman Catholic Church uses the
Vulgate which is similar to the Septuagint on what grounds do the
Protestant churches claim to support their use of an incomplete bible?
The
canon of the bible consists of 49 Old Testament books and 27 New Testament
books making a total of 76 books. The majority of Protestants blindly
accept a Regulation (Canon) that includes only the 66 Books of the Holy
Bible, because someone told them that those are the only Books that
comprise the entire Holy Bible. They were “told” that there are the
Canonical Books and the secondary or Deuterocanonic Books, and that only
the 66 are Canonical, while the other 10 are apparently Deuterocanonic and
therefore not “divinely inspired”. In fact, they have even confused the
Deuterocanonic Books with the “Apocrypha”, which is an entirely different
category of Books. We Orthodox, on the other hand, acknowledge the other 10
Books as Canonical Books and naturally we accept them as the product of a
decision issued by an Ecumenical Synod, unlike the arbitrary Protestant
acceptance.
In order to
justify this arbitrary decision, Protestants have concocted a fake
statement, which, out of ignorance, the followers have accepted without
question. They claim that:
“The Lord and the Apostles completely disregarded the “Deuterocanonic”
Books that the Orthodox have accepted, and did not use them as references.
On the contrary, they make references only to the other Books that we have
acknowledged; therefore those only are the books that are divinely
inspired and Canonical.”
Of course this statement is not only unfounded, it is positively false. In
fact there are a great many examples found in the New Testament which are
mentioned in the 10 books which the Protestants consider as Apocryphal. We
do not need to mention them all here, but to show that their regulation is
false, we could ask them the following question: “If you consider it
imperative that the New Testament refers to extracts in the Old Testament
then why do you accept the Book of Esther as canonical since neither the
Lord or his Apostles have at any time quoted from this Book?”
By their own argument, the Book of Esther should also belong to the
Deuterocanonic or Apocryphal list.
How
then did the Orthodox Church form the Canon of the Bible? Firstly, the
Church does not consider all the Books of the Old Testament as Divinely
inspired. St. Athanasius in the Fourth Century proposed a list of the
books for canonization where he separated the books into categories of
“divinely inspired” and those “approved for reading by newcomers to the
faith”. His proposal or canon was one of six canons that the Church
acknowledged when finalizing the canon of the Bible during the Quinisext
Ecumenical Synod in 691. These Canons are as follows: the canon of
Laodicea in 364AD, the canon of Carthage in 418AD, the 85th Apostolic
canon, and the canons of three individual fathers of the 4th century,
Saint Athanasius, St Gregory the Theologian and St. Amphilochius of
Ikonion. Thus, although no canon has been given directly by an Ecumenical
Council concerning the Books of the Holy Bible, we do have 6 validated
canons based on synodical decisions that are guidelines for the acceptance
of the Books of the Holy Bible.
Of the above
canons, the Synod of Laodicea issued a broad canon regarding the Canonical
and Proposed Reading books.
The Synod of Carthage issued a fixed canon regarding the Canonical, Divine
and Proposed Reading books.
The 85th Apostolic Canon issued a canon regarding Venerable and Holy
books.
Saint Athanasius issued a canon regarding Divine Books for Canonization
and another canon for Proposed Reading Books for the newly catechized.
Saint Gregory the Theologian issued a canon for the Genuine Books,
and Saint Amphilochius of Ikonion issued a canon of the Divinely Inspired
Books.
The books in these canons are not exactly identical to each other and that
is because each one of these canons uses different “characteristics”. One
canon speaks of “divine” books and another canon speaks of “divinely
inspired” books of the Holy Bible. There is a difference between the terms
“divine” and “divinely
inspired”. Not every Book in the Holy Bible is divine and
divinely inspired. We Orthodox Christians make very careful
distinctions in our expressions, which is something that Protestants do
not perceive, hence their assertion that all the books in the Holy Bible
are divinely inspired. The Books of the Bible are referred to in the
Canonizing sources either as Divine, or Divinely Inspired, or Canonical,
or Proposed Reading, or Beneficial, or Venerable, or Canonized. These
characterizations are not incidental. Differences do exist; hence, all
books do not belong to every category. In the Church we speak with
precision and make very delicate distinctions; we do not resort to coarse
distinctions such as “Canonical” and “Deuterocanonical” (Secondary).
The Holy Bible
contains books (such as the three Books of the Maccabees) which are only
Venerable, but not Divinely Inspired or Divine. It contains books (such as
Judith and Tobit) which are Canonical, but not Divinely Inspired or
Divine. And it also contains Divine books (such as Solomon’s Wisdom) which
are not however Divinely Inspired.
What are the differences to these clarifications?
Venerable is a book that Christians have a duty to respect.
Proposed Reading is a book that can be read by all.
Church Text is that which can be read in Churches.
Newcomer Reading is that which is useful for the newly catechized.
Canonical is that which belongs to a Canon (regulation).
Holy is a book that is merely beneficial and not necessarily infallible or
Divine or Divinely Inspired. In other words, it can be used as an aid, but
it cannot be used to support dogmatic or canonical truths.
Divine is the book that has been written under the supervision of the Holy
Spirit, and possibly even by human wisdom. Divine books are infallible in
matters pertaining to salvation, but are not necessarily Divinely
Inspired.
Divinely inspired is the book that contains a revelation of the Holy
Spirit. It is also considered Divine and infallible in matters of
salvation.
The majority
of the so called Deuterocanonic or Apocryphal Old Testament books are
therefore not apocryphal, but canonical, even though the Church doesn’t
consider them as divinely inspired. They are still beneficial to the
reader and they contain nothing that would harm the spiritual state of the
reader. There are of course many other Old Testament books that are
considered as apocryphal such as the Revelations of Adam, Revelations of
Lamech, the Prayer of Joseph the All- Good, Revelations of Moses, Psalms
of Eldad and Solomom, Foreign sayings of Isaiah, Revelations of Sophonias
and the Third book of Esdras. There are even others that we know were pure
and unadulterated up to the times of the Apostles like the apocryphal
books of Elias, Jeremiah and Enoch. Paul quoted from the apocryphal book
of Elias when writing his first Epistle to the Corinthians, and from the
apocryphal book of Jeremiah when writing to the Ephesians. St Jude in his
General Epistle quotes a whole passage from the Apocryphal book of Enoch:
“And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied
of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his
saints, To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly
among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed,
and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against
him.” (Jude 1: 14-15) These books, even during the times of Moses,
were never considered as part of Holy Scripture, but it seems they were
acceptable to be read. After the times of the Apostles parts of these
readings were adulterated or tampered with, probably by devout Jews who
knew that the Apostles made references to them, so as to discredit the
writings of the Apostles.
With the New
Testament writings we have no Deuterocanonical books. There are only the
Canonical and Apocryphal. But who gave us the New Testament as we have it
today? Many Protestants churches stand dogmatically on “Sola Scriptura” in
other words they rely only on Scripture and in the process reject the
Church of God which not only produced the New Testament, but also selected
through the guidance of the Holy Spirit those books which compose the New
Testament. The history of God’s Church didn’t stop with the first century.
If it had, we would not possess the New Testament books which are now so
dear to every Christian believer. The phenomena of separating Church and
Bible which we see so prevalent in much of today’s Christian world is a
modern phenomena. Early Christians made no such artificial distinctions.
When the
church began, there were no New Testament books. Old Testament texts alone
were used as scripture. As we saw in another talk last year, the four
Gospels were written from thirty to seventy years after Jesus’ death and
Resurrection. During that time the Church relied on oral tradition, the
accounts of eye-witnesses. The first Gospel was that of St. Mathew which
was written between 42AD and 62 AD. Thus, the church existed for a few
years with no New Testament books, and only the oral form of the teaching
of the apostles. Even after a book was written, it was not immediately
widely available. They didn’t have printing facilities which today can
print and distribute thousands of books at a time. Each copy had to be
written by hand on parchment which was very time consuming. By the end of
the first century the Church had universally accepted the four Gospels,
the Act of the Apostles, most of St. Paul’s Epistles and most of the
Epistles General, but there was no canon saying which books were canonical
and which were not. There was not as yet a New Testament as we know it
today, but only individual books.
Some books
like the Second Epistle of Peter were read almost exclusively only in
their regions for which they were originally targeted. This continued for
a long time, leading to their (temporary or permanent) rejection from the
canon due to doubts about their apostolic origins. Even if not universally
accepted, some books were highly regarded by its recipients and those
church's in the surrounding areas. This led to local canonicity, in other
words a certain book was used in public worship only in a particular
region. In time, 27 of these books came to have universal canonicity, but
others (e.g. Didache, Shepherd of Hermas, Barnabas, I Clement, Gospel of
the Hebrews) were rejected for inclusion in the New Testament canon, even
though they often retained a reputation for being profitable Christian
reading.
For over two
hundred years a number of books we now take for granted as being part of
the New Testament were disputed by the Church before being included. Many
other books were considered for inclusion, but eventually excluded. The
earliest complete listing of all twenty-seven books of the New Testament
was not given until A.D. 367, by St. Athanasius. This means that the first
complete listing of New Testament books as we have them today didn’t
appear until over 300 years after the death and Resurrection of Christ.
During the
first four centuries there was substantial disagreement over which books
should be included in the canon of Scripture. The first person we know of
who tried to establish a New Testament canon was the second-century
heretic, Marcion. Marcion believed that the God of the Old Testament, the
Creator God, was contemptible, a very different God from the God of the
New Testament. He wanted the Church to reject its Jewish heritage, and in
so doing dispense with the Old Testament entirely. Marcion’s canon
included only one Gospel, and ten of Paul’s epistles. The only Gospel he
accepted was that of St. Luke, but even this he considered was adulterated
and he set out to edit and reconstruct what he considered was the
uncorrupted text.
Many believe
that it was in reaction or response to Marcion's canon that the early
Church determined to have a clearly defined canon of its own. The church
insisted on a catholic scripture, one that encompassed Jewish and Gentile
Christianity and that faithfully reflected the apostolic teachings. But
like Marcian, there were many who did not accept all Four Gospels and
other books of the New Testament. Another problem was that during the
Second and Third Centuries many other books appeared bearing the Names of
Apostles.
In those early
years of Christianity a controversy arose over which of the four Gospels
to use. The Christians of Asia Minor used the Gospel of John rather than
the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. And based upon the Passion account
contained in John, Christians in Asia Minor celebrated Easter on a
different day than those in Rome, which resisted the Gospel of John and
instead used the other Gospels. The Western Church for a time hesitated to
use the Gospel of John because the Gnostic heretics also made use of it in
addition to their own “secret Gospels.”
St. Irenaeus
(c. 130-c. 200), Bishop of Lyons, produced the first known catholic canon.
He recognized the four gospel canon as an already established entity and
championed it as “an indispensable and recognized collection against all
deviations of heretics.” Thus, sometime in the last half of the second
century, the four church gospels began to be viewed as a single unit. He
defended the four gospels and refused to accept new gospels, and also
defended the book of Acts by pointing out that it is illogical to accept
St. Luke's gospel and reject Acts (as did Marcion). The Pauline letters
needed no defence as even the heretics acknowledged them as authoritative.
He cited most of them, in fact he cited from every New Testament book
except Philemon and III John, but given that both are extremely short,
this does not indicate one way or the other what he thought of their
canonicity. While citing both Revelations and the Shepherd, he did not
cite them as canonical books, although he considered them important.
By the year
200 the canon had almost reached its final form, but there were still some
books that were disputed like Revelations, Hebrews, Philemon, and the
Catholic Epistles (I and II Peter, I and II and III John, and Jude). For
instance, the Old Latin translation of the New Testament which was made
around that time contained the present day canon without the books, II
Peter, James, and Hebrews. The Epistle to the Hebrews was clearly excluded
in the Western Church in a number of listings of the second, third, and
fourth centuries. Prominent among reasons for excluding this book were
concerns over its authorship. Primarily due to Augustine and his influence
upon certain North African councils, the Epistle to the Hebrews was
finally accepted in the West by the end of the fourth century.
On the other
hand, the book of Revelation, also known as the Apocalypse, written by the
Apostle John, was not accepted in the Eastern Church for several
centuries. Once again, questions concerning authorship of the book were at
the source of the controversy. Among Eastern authorities who rejected this
book were Dionysius of Alexandria (third century), Eusebius (third
century), Cyril of Jerusalem (fourth century), the Council of Laodicea
(fourth century), John Chrysostom (fourth century), Theodore of Mopsuesta
(fourth century), and Theodoret (fifth century). In addition, the original
Syriac and Armenian versions of the New Testament omitted this book. Many
Greek New Testament manuscripts written before the ninth century do not
contain the Apocalypse, and it is not used in the liturgical cycle of the
Eastern Church to this day.
St.
Athanasius supported the inclusion of the Apocalypse, and
it is due primarily to his influence that it was eventually received into
the New Testament canon in the East. The early Church actually seems to
have made an internal compromise on the Apocalypse and Hebrews. The East
would have excluded the Apocalypse from the canon, while the West would
have done without Hebrews. Simply put, each side agreed to accept the
disputed books of the other.
With
the passage of time the Church discerned which writings were truly
Apostolic and which were not. It was a prolonged struggle taking place
over several centuries in which the Church decided what books were her
own. Many criteria were used to determine if a book was to be included as
canonical:
1) It had to have Apostolic authority in
other words it had to have been written by an apostle, by someone
associated with an apostle, like St. Mark and St Luke, or by a member of
the Lord's family.
2) It had to be from the Apostolic age.
3) It must have been widely accepted for a
long time and in many places. Regular use of a book liturgically was also
an important principle. Liturgical use both provided a powerful motivation
to produce the canon since knowing what books ought be used in public
worship was critical and was itself an important determinant in setting
the bounds of the canon.
4)
It must conform to the oral tradition and rule of faith taught by the
Church.
5)
It must be considered inspired of God.
6)
It must be accepted by the Church.
This then is a short account of the history of the Bible Canon and how it
was formed. A more detailed form would take us into another week or two on
the same subject which would bore you out of your minds.
But
the question posed in the beginning was in two parts. It still remains for
us to see the answer to the second part: If the apocryphal gospels are not
canonical, why did the Church rely on them to formulate certain feasts of
the Mother of God such as the Dormition and Entry?
The apocryphal
do indeed mention the birth and childhood of the Mother of God, her entry
into the temple and also her Dormition. But, I would say to the person who
posed the question: why do you assume that the written text came first and
that the Church used these texts to formulate the feasts of the Mother of
God? This is a very Protestant approach which only accepts the written
Testament without regards to Holy Tradition which gave them the Bible in
the form they now have. We have already seen that for many years the
teaching of the Church was made orally without any written data on the
life of Christ. Surely this applies also to the life of the Mother of God.
Oral tradition handed us the stories concerning the Mother of God which
were later recorded in the liturgical hymns of the Church. The fact that
the apocryphal Gospels also contain these stories only confirms that they
were well known and accepted within the Church at the time of them being
written. As I have said elsewhere, “the Gospels do not teach us everything
for when the Lord was to leave this world He promised us another teacher:
“And I will pray to the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter,
that He may abide with you forever. Even the Spirit of Truth” (John 14:
16) and “the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send
in my name, He shall teach you all things” (John 14: 26).
Evidently
then, there is a Christian teaching, which supplements the Gospels, and
this teaching is found in Holy Tradition. Let us not forget that not all
that the Lord taught, said or did is written in the Gospels and other
books of the New Testament; neither everything that the Apostles taught
are recorded in the Acts. Does not St John the Evangelist say towards the
end of his Gospel: “And there are also many other things which Jesus did,
the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the
world itself could not contain the books that should be written” (John 21:
25).” This also applies to Holy Tradition, not everything needed to be
written down on paper to be accepted as the truth within the Church. St.
Paul, writing to the Christians of Thessalonica says: “stand fast and hold
the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle”
[that is whether oral or written] (2 Thessalonians 2: 15). This shows that
the unwritten and orally transmitted Apostolic teachings, along with the
divinely inspired books written by the Lord’s disciples and Apostles, make
up Sacred or Holy Tradition, which is the basis and the foundation of the
doctrine of the Orthodox Faith. Both the oral and written are equal
sources of authority.
Not all the
apocryphal are complete fairytales, some contain a great deal of
information which is beneficial, but they were rejected by the Church
because, even though they bear the names of the apostles, they were not
written by the Apostles or because they contain teachings that are not in
line with the official teachings of the Church. They were written or
adulterated by heretics who conformed them to their own teachings. The
Gnostic tradition was an abundant source of apocryphal gospels. With them,
as with most Christians of the first and second centuries, apocryphal
books were highly esteemed. A well-known Gnostic apocryphal book is the
Gospel of Thomas, the only complete text of which was found in the
Egyptian town of Nag Hammadi in 1945. The Gospel of Judas, another Gnostic
gospel, also received much media attention when it was reconstructed in
2006.
The Gospel of
Thomas portrays Jesus as a very naughty, wicked and vindictive little boy.
Listen to the following passage and then decide if that is the Jesus you
know in your hearts.
“Jesus went through the village, and a child ran and
dashed against his shoulder. And Jesus was provoked and said unto him: You
shall not finish your course. And immediately he fell down and died. But
certain when they saw what was done said: Whence was this young child
born, for that every word of his is an accomplished work? And the parents
of him that was dead came unto Joseph, and blamed him, saying: You that
has such a child cannot dwell with us in the village: or do you teach him
to bless and not to curse: for he slays our children. And Joseph called
the young child apart and admonished him, saying: Why have you done such
things, that these suffer and hate us and persecute us? But Jesus said: I
know that these thy words are not yours: nevertheless for thy sake I will
hold my peace: but they shall bear their punishment. And straightway they
that accused him were smitten with blindness. And they that saw it were
sore afraid and perplexed, and said concerning him that every word which
he spake whether it were good or bad, was a deed, and became a marvel. And
when they saw that Jesus had so done, Joseph arose and took hold upon his
ear and wrung it sore. And the young child was angry and said unto him: It
is enough for you to seek and not to find, and verily thou hast done
unwisely: do you not know that I am yours? vex me not.”
The
Gospel of Judas is no better. It tells of a secret conversation between
Jesus and Judas. Among the many things they discuss is also the subject of
the creation of humanity. Jesus tells Judas about certain ranks of ruling
angels. One of these angels called Saklas says to the other angels
“Let us create a human being after the likeness and
after the image. They fashioned Adam and his wife Eve, who is called, in
the cloud, Zoe. For by this name all the generations seek the man, and
each of them calls the woman by these names.”
What this
gospel is trying to say is that we were created by angels and not by God.
But enough of these silly and blasphemous books: It is
obvious to anyone with any intelligence that they contain nothing of the
truth. Most lies contain a little of the truth. In fact, a lie is a
mixture of true and false. It is the truth taken and distorted so that the
receiver of the lie cannot easily distinguish that it is a lie. This is
the original lie that the devil used to deceive Eve in the Garden of Eden
and this is the pattern of lies that the devil continues to use against
the faithful. An outright lie is easily spotted, but take the truth and
add even a small and hardly noticeable lie to it and you have a weapon
that will deceive the un-knowledgeable and unsuspecting. The books
mentioned don’t even fall into the category of a lie, they are just
blatant blasphemies. Let us then not, even for an instance, think that the
Church, in all her wisdom, borrowed from such books for her liturgical
worship. Let us not think that the Church shares in these lies and
blasphemies for that in itself would be a blasphemy. Rather let us
acknowledge that the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, has always
contained and preached the truth, the truth which some writers, guided by
the unholy spirit, have taken and used to support and give weight to their
own lies.
|
|
|
