The Canon of the Synod of Carthage

Chapter III

24th / 32nd Canon of the Synod of Carthage

***********

Introductory observation

In lieu of another introductory obervation, it suffices here to recall what was said in the introduction—namely, that this Canon of the Council of Carthage (of 419 AD) or of the Bible’s Canons of the Church in Africa (Codex Canonum Ecclesiae Africanae) is, for the most part, a repetition or validation of the Canon of the Council of Hippo (393 AD) and the Council of Carthage (397 AD), without our ability to speak with certainty on the tautism between them.¹ We will provide further details in the relative interpretative comments that follow, wherever they are deemed necessary for the proper placement of the issues and for extracting the necessary and resolving conclusions for the present study.

 Canon Text ²

It was similarly favoured, that, apart from the canonical Scriptures, nothing else be read in the Church upon the name of ‘divine Scriptures’. The canonical Scriptures are these: ³

Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua of Nun, Judges, Ruth; of the Reigns (aka ‘Kings’) are four Books; of the Chronicles are two Books; Job; Psalms; of Solomon are five Books; of the (minor) Prophets are twelve Books; Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Tobit, Judith, Esther; of Ezdra are two Books.

Of the New Testament: Four Gospels, of the Acts of the Apostles one Book;  Epistles of Paul are fourteen; Epistles of the Apostle Peter are two; Epistles of the Apostle John are three; Epistles of the Apostle Jacob (aka ‘James’) is one; Epistle of the Apostle Judas is one; the Revelation of John is one book.

Let this be made known to our brother and fellow minister Boniface, as well as to the other bishops of the same regions, as confirmation of the present Canon, because we had received these from the Fathers ‘for reading’ in the Church.

Interpretative Observations

1.                 In the present canon, we notice that the close connection between the two characterizations of ‘canonical’ and ‘divine’ for Scriptures, is established synodically and made official.

The canon stipulates: "... that, apart from the Canonical Scriptures, nothing else be read in the Church upon the name (with the characterization) of ‘divine Scriptures’.

The characterization ‘divine’ can be borne and claimed, only by the canonical books - the books that belong in the canon of the Holy Bible. Just as, conversely, only the ‘divine’ books can be canonical and authentic. That is, only these can rightfully claim a place in the canon of the Holy Bible.

2.                 But of course we must certainly add this also:  For a book to belong - without mistake and indisputably - in the canon of the Holy Bible, it must be properly included in it, officially and synodically. That is, books that belong in the canon of the Holy Bible (aka: ‘canonical Scriptures’) are those which were inserted into that canon, under the canons of the Church; (we repeat, remind, and stress: of the overall Church) – that is, those which have the validation of an Ecumenical Synod

3.               Additionally, it is useful herein -albeit not necessary- to note interpretatively that in the canon under examination, the phrase "upon the name of divine Scriptures" signifies "in the name of ‘divine Scriptures’, or ‘as a divine scripture’, and does not in the least imply any doubt as to whether the canonical Scriptures are divine Scriptures.

As endorsement of the above interpretation and the expression in the 57^th (66^th) canon of the same Council in Carthage: "certain ones opposing in the name of the truth”,⁴ which means "contrary in the name of the truth”⁵ - that is, opposite to the meaning of the truth, opposite to the truth.

4.                 For the sake of accuracy and the truth, we must also note the following here: That the present canon includes the Wisdom of Solomon, Tobit, Judith, and Esther among the canonical books of the Holy Bible, and not among the books ‘pending canonization’, as noted by the author of the ‘Pedalion’.^⁶ The same applies to the Book of Revelation, about which the author of the ‘Pedalion’ states: "However, the Council of Carthage accepts it as a book  'pending canonization', Canon 32."^⁷ We will ascertain below, what this elucidation is useful for..

5.                 Also to be taken into serious consideration is the phrase that expresses the desire of the Church Fathers, that no book other than the canonical ones is to be read in the Church, with the characterization ‘divine Scripture’. However, one might ask: Is it possible for a book to be read or announced in the Church, with another characterization, for example, as a patristic or ascetic work? Possibly, yes. Although this is also problematic, since we have the 59^th canon of Laodicea,^⁸ which does not permit the reading of un-canonized books in the Church, at least per the canonical precision. It is obvious, that the Church is the space where authority must prevail. After all, this is how She is acknowledged as "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15). 

6.                 Pursuant to the above, special attention must also be given to the following: The present canon, by using the determinant expression "The Canonical Scriptures are these", specifies⁹ and consequently confines the canonical books of the Holy Bible, to those that are mentioned by it.

Moreover, in conjunction with the other phrase used: "...that, apart from the canonical Scriptures, nothing else be read in the Church upon the name of ‘divine Scriptures’...“, we conclude that it indeed seeks to confine the ‘divine Scriptures’ to the books that it lists. Consequently, it closes the canon of the Holy Bible. Only if it had used a vague expression, for example, “canonical Scriptures are Genesis...etc...” (that is, without the defining article “The canonical....” and also the pronoun “these”), we could then have been able to say that it does NOT close the canon, but that it leaves a margin for additional books to be included in it.

7.                 We are then obliged to note the following paradox in this list of books of the Holy Bible: that the present canon -in accordance with the views of many Fathers of the (Western) Church of those years- ascribes five books to Solomon. However, we usually recognize only three ¹⁰  or four ¹¹ books of the Old Testament as ascribed to him (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, and Wisdom of Solomon). Of course the canon does not explicitly name which books they are, thus leaving space for various assumptions and solutions.

8.                 While the canon leaves free space to different interpretations, this however is under specific prerequisites, for we must also take into account other relevant canons, which were co-validated by the Quinisext Ecumenical Council. Thus, the 85^th Apostolic Canon, those of Gregory the Theologian and Amphilochius of Iconium, all ascribe to Solomon the books of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs, whereas the canon of Saint Athanasius the Great also ascribes to him the Wisdom of Solomon. ¹²

9.                    We can thus say, that as the fifth book of Solomon, we have  the ease to imply it as a segment of one of the above, known books of his, or rather, regard one of the above books as being comprised of two.¹³

In this way, it is achieved to not exclude the said book or portion of it from the existing validation, while at the same time, it prevents and also acquits us of any possible doubt regarding its validation – assuming it might be divided into two books in the future.

10.                    Perhaps also, the Fathers of the Council in Carthage were implying the Wisdom of Sirach, because there were some ¹⁴ who had ascribed it to Solomon. However, given that this canon does not explicitly name this book, likewise, neither does the canon. (Publisher’s note).  Validated with this form by the Quinisext Ecumenical Council, nothing forces us to accept that the Wisdom of Sirach was written by Solomon ^¹5 or that it echoes opinions of his. ¹⁶  At the same time, we are not obligated to accept this book as listed among the cited books of the Holy Bible in case it is not Solomon’s but belongs to someone else. ¹⁷

11.                      Perhaps we are obligated here to remind what was said in the Introduction regarding the will of the law (=canon) if it concerns a 'divine' text. Accordingly therefore, with what was also stated therein, we are not obligated to follow any perchance erroneous inner thought (the will) of the one who composed the canon (in this case, the 24^th/32^nd  Canon of Carthage) but instead, what the canon per se says—what its text says.

12.                    Furthermore, we could say that because of such a vagueness as this, it does not limit us, nor does it bind us to also accept some other outcome of matters.  For example, we have the option -should a lost book of Solomon be discovered in the future- of acknowledging it as a canonical book of the Holy Bible — provided it is proven to be genuinely his, and that it does not contradict the testimonies of other canons. In any event, to this day and with the testimonies of already researched canons, it does not contradict, since both the 85^th  Apostolic Canon as well as the 16^th Canon of Laodicea have not closed the canon of the books of the Holy Bible.

13.                  We could also add that only in such a case -that is, wherever we have such a possibility of a margin, otherwise the canon of the Holy Bible would be closed per the present 24^th/32^nd canon- it might be possible to provide an answer to the question by W. Michaelis, who notes:

"What would happen, if supposedly an -as yet unknown but undoubtedly authentic- book of an apostolic character were to be discovered ?” This is a question that is not at all redundant.  This basically leads to the following: to study the problem of the canon well, and that it is possible one day it may become an acute one.”  ¹⁸   

Furthermore, on the basis of the above, we can also judge the argument that he pursuantly projected: “That unquestionably genuine Agrapha were not accepted later (as supplements) in the New Testament does not prejudge anything, given that the canon consists of the individual complete books, and not of pieces (fragments).” ¹⁹

14.                 Next, we must embark on certain additional observations, which are likewise judged as necessary for the proper placement of matters. The canon specifically   states: “of the Prophets are twelve (canonical) Books;” and immediately after it adds “Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Tobit, Judith, Esther..." At first glance, one might think that the insertion of their names  immediately enumerates the twelve Books of the Prophets, in which case, one would justifiably wonder about the accuracy of the canon, since it names only four Prophets. However, this is not what it does. It is obviously initially referring to the twelve (so-called minor) Prophets as a “Dodekapropheton” as a whole, summarized, and then it mentions separately and by name the four major prophets, as evidenced by the fact that it immediately afterwards quotes Tobit, Judith, etc..

15.                   It should likewise be noted that the canon makes a general mention of the Prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, without making any special mention for example of the Books of Baruch, Lamentations of Jeremiah, Epipstle of Jeremiah etc.. And one could wonder once again justifiably: “What then? Are they rejected?” We cannot assert that they are. On the contrary, motivated by the fact that it previously speaks of the twelve minor Prophets in summary, we can say that not only are these books rejected, but that it rather allows space for them to also be included, provided they are witnessed elsewhere (by other the other validated relevant canons). ²⁰  We can obviously assert that it thus quotes in general the names of the four major Prophets , so that under the name “Jeremiah” -for example- it could be possible to co-imply the “Epistle” and “Lamentations” as his.

One must in fact also add to the above the following phenomenon: It does not say “of Isaiah” or “of Jeremiah” one book –as it does about other Books- in which case it would be confining things, but says in general “Isaiah”, “Jeremiah” etc., in which case it can be implied that they might have two or more books by them.

16.                      We must now come to another point: the Greek text of the canon does not mention the Books of the Maccabees, whereas the Latin text of the canon includes (the first?) two of them.²¹  This now raises the question: What should we take into consideration and accept, for the formation of the catalogue of canonical books of the Holy Bible: the Greek or the Latin text? One might instinctively respond that, since they exist in the Latin text, which is precedent (the original?), we must accept that they were validated by the Ecumenical Quinisext Council and that we should take them into account in the formation of the Canon of the Bible. But are matters truly that simple?

17.                        Firstly it should be noted that according also to the different indications, the Quinisext Ecumenical Council had validated the canons of the Council of Carthage based on the Greek text of its canons.²²  This is supported by the fact that when the Ecumenical Quinisext Council repeats canons of the local Carthaginian council, the text of those canons in the Greek language includes the word “expressly”.²³  Compare the 37^th/44^th canon of Carthage with the 32^nd canon of the Quinisext Council, and even the 41^st/48^th of the former with the 29^th of the latter.²⁴  

18.                  This was, after all, only natural. Since the Quinisext Ecumenical Council had been convened in the East and composed mainly of bishops of the Eastern Church - who were Greek-speaking - it was to be expected that the texts used were written in Greek. In fact this use of Greek manuscripts may have become a custom, and at any rate it appears that particular value and authenticity was ascribed to the Greek-written texts.²⁵  

So, is it therefore possible, after the aforementioned, for us to accept without objection that the Fathers of the Quinisext Ecumenical Council had validated the  Latin text of the canons of Carthage (and the present 24^th /32^nd  canon)?

19.                     In spite of the above, the reply still cannot be negative, and the proposal that the Latin text must be taken into consideration, cannot be rejected as entirely baseless, because it is possible for the following to be projected, i.e., that the Quinisext Council had validated the canons which Carthage had established and abandoned, the way it had established them - that is, with the content that she (Carthage) had established – unless we have some related evidence to the contrary. But, on the subject of the canon’s catalogue of the books of the Holy Bible (Publisher’s note: the 24^th/32^nd canon), we have -at least expressly- no amendment. The matter, therefore –as the objector could insist – is to discover what Carthage had originally said.

20.                   In spite of the correctness of the above restraining observation per se, it is possible for the follower of the Greek text to also insist and say that we have an indirect amendment of the Latin text of the Carthaginian decision, if we were to accept that the Quinisext Ecumenical Council had before its eyes its Greek text.²⁶  

Also, if the above -as said by professor Vas. Vellas- become accepted and are valid, ie., that, provided the additions which are found in the sacred texts “are not opposed to the Book in which they are found, and generally to the spirit of the Holy Bible, they can be “embraced” by analogous ecclesiastic prestige,” ²⁷ then we must also take into consideration the Greek text, because, if additions are accepted for the Holy Bible, then for the local councils, likewise valid are the amendments and the removals that are made by Ecumenical Councils. ²⁸

21.                     Of course the things that are said by both sides as regards the form and language (and, consequently, the content) of the text, which was finally validated by the Quinisext Ecumenical Council, obviously create a certain confusion and doubt. But the problem does not end there, because unfortunately, the doubt also extends elsewhere and the relative confusion thus intensifies.  Already - even as regards the subject of the original form of the Latin text itself - matters are not at all clear or simple. First of all, we must not forget that we do not have absolute certainty about the actual or original form of the canons of the Councils of Hippo (393 AD) and of Carthage (397 AD), which were precedent to the canon of the present Council of 419, nor do we have certainty about this very canon itself. ²⁹ In this regard, the fact is likewise not irrelevant that the Books of the Maccabees are absent from many manuscripts of the Latin text – in fact, noteworthy and archetypal ones. ³⁰

22.                   Besides, we should perhaps take into consideration here certain observations made by W. Michaelis, which provide a basis for reasonable hypotheses regarding the Books of the Maccabees. He states that "the North African Councils of Hippo (Hippo Regius) in 393 and of Carthage in 397 followed the canon of the Roman Council convened in 382 under Pope Damasus I (366–384), although not without some freedom in its formulation, and apparently, not without resistances, as the Council of Carthage in 419 had to validate the previous decisions one more time. Augustine, who had already participated in the Council of Hippo as an Elder, used all his influence for the sake of the Roman canon."  ³¹

23.                    First of all, these observations help us comprehend why the canons of those Councils—at least those of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397)— had likely included both Books of the Maccabees. This would have been expected, given that both the Council of Rome (382) and Augustine himself had included them in their canons. However, it should be noted - regarding the resistances of the African bishops which W. Michaelis speaks of – that it is not unlikely that they are also mentioned in that inclusion of the Maccabean books, perhaps influenced by the canon of the East.

24.                  In fact, if we wished to advance even further, we could say that the re-examination of the canon of the Bible by the Council of Carthage in 419 and its validation anew - as W. Michaelis notes – “it is for this it was needed, and for this it was done: to smooth out those antitheses.”  And the question is posed: Could it be that for this to succeed, the Council was forced to review the canon of precedent Councils?  That is, if -instead of validating the canon of the precedent Councils (Hippo, of 393 and Carthage, of 397), it ultimately leaned in favour of the Canon as contained in the Greek text, and officially established that one?

25.                   Advocating in favour of this version are the following events: Firstly, that Augustine, who had also participated in the Council of Carthage in 419, in fact as Bishop, ³² towards the end of his life, and having revised his older views, had leaned more in favour of the narrower canon of the Old Testament – that is, towards the Hebrew canon, and also in agreement with the “modern” trends of that time.³³ After all, it was no longer possible to ignore Hieronymos,³⁴  who followed the order of the Hebrew canon. The second event is the difference, which, as mentioned above, is observed between the various manuscripts, particularly between the Latin and the Greek text, but also between the per se Latin text.

26.                        These all lead us effortlessly to questions on the following thoughts: 

(a) Could it be in the decisions, could it be in the original texts of the decisions of Carthage, that the Books of the Maccabees were not in them, hence the reason they are absent from the Greek translations that are dependent on them?

b) Could it be that the books of the Maccabees were added by the copyists to only a few manuscripts of the Latin text, as a reaction to the older spirit of the canon prevailing in the West - in favor of the spirit of the broader canon? ³⁵   This could have been further reinforced by the presence of Augustine at the 419 Council, leading some scribes to assume that the Roman canon—initially supported by Augustine—had been imposed.

27.                           But this way, the Greek text of the canon appears as more authentic than the Latin written texts. Things being thus, it is difficult to assert that the Books of the Maccabees were in the original text of the canon of Carthage. And in such a case, how can we accept any validation whatsoever about them on the part of the Quinisext Council?  Or, could it perhaps be precisely because of this serious doubt, which is deceived as regards the form of the original text (the prototype), that we are compelled to accept the Greek text as validated – something that the Fathers of the Quinisext Council obviously knew?

28.                       We, after the above, humbly believe that we are obligated to accept the 24^th/32^nd canon of Carthage the way it is in the Greek text, and in the present case, without the books of the Maccabees, for the preparation of the canon of the Holy Bible. Or at least, as more condescendingly, we can accept both of the (first?)³⁶ Books of the Maccabees in this canon (and in the canon of the divine books of the Holy Bible). But with many reservations. Unless they are witnessed as such from elsewhere. Of course as regards the third book of Maccabees, it is not possible to consider it for inclusion in the canon of the divine books of the Holy Bible, based on the data of the present canon of Carthage³⁷ .

29.                        After the above observations, we are approaching the end of the present canon, where the following segment is also  quoted:  “Let this be made known to our brother and fellow minister Boniface, as well as to the other bishops of the same regions, as confirmation of the present Canon...”, whici, however, is omitted by the author of the “Pedalion”. With this sentence, the Fathers of the Council of Carthage obviously wanted to achieve a kind of verification, validation and acceptance of this canon on behalf of the pope of Rome Boniface I (418–423) and the other neighboring Bishops.

30.                         It is possibly for this reason – that is, because of how the Fathers of the Council of Carthage addressed the pope of Rome – that the author of the “Pedalion” did not include this segment in the text of the canon.  But it is more likely that he did it, for the reason that this canon was validated by the Quiisext Ecumenical Council and no longer needed validation by the pope of Rome and the other, neighboring Bishops. Subsequently, this segment of the canont had no practical canonical significance for the author of the “Pedalion”. It was redundant according to him. Besides, the author of the “Pedaion” embarks on other curtails or modifications of the texts of the Carthaginian Counci, which he apparently does not regard as canons, and for which he is probably right, as they should have the status of “Minutes” or other documents of the Council.^³⁸

31. But if this section of the canon does not have any immediate practical canonical importance, perhaps it has historical significance. In any event, it gives us a reason for questions on certain suppositions, which are related to the above-stated regarding the form of the canon and its validation. Thus, it is asked:  Could the fact that the Fathers of the Carthaginian Council (of 419) are seeking confirmation by Boniface and the other, neighboring Bishops be an indication that their canon was not a simple validation of the Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), but something more – perhaps even a revision by them?

32. This supposition is definitely reinforced, by the end statement of the canon, which is as follows: "...for we had received these from the Fathers as ‘appropriate for reading’ in the Church”. In other words, it is also highlighting here the following question: Could there be an underlying comparison of this canon (which was made on the basis of the tradition of the Fathers) against those canons of the Councils of Hippo and Carthage, which had been established on the basis of the Roman tradition?  If this is the case, it will mean one more reason which will reinforce the already formulated view that the original text did not contain the Books of the Maccabees.

33. Additionally, from this final ending of the canon, we observe that the Fathers of the Council of Carthage (want to) pursue the standardly prevalent principle in the Church, i.e., that they pass on and designate whatever they too had received from their precedent holy Fathers.

34. On the question of which Fathers are implied, we are unable to give a specific answer (a catalogue of names). It may have been by the Fathers before them and in Council (for example of Ladicea) who had defined something regarding the Canon of the Holy Bible, or perhaps even by the Fathers who had separately written something regarding the canon of the Holy Bible.  At any rate, it was not only by the Fathers of the councils of Hippo and Carthage, because it is a general mention (“...for we had received these from the Fathers ... in the Church...”) and not  “...by the Fathers before us...” nor “...in our Church...”.

35. One might ask why the canon says that these books were received as "readable" (= appropriate for reading), when other canons –and specifically the previous, 16^th canon of Laodicea- that mentions which books should be read ("which must be read"), does not designate the same things as the present canon, but fewer ones³⁹? Does this not constitute a contradiction between the canons? The answer is negative. If we examine matters historically and carefully note the wording of the canons, we will be convinced of the correctness of the reply. The present 24^th canon of Carthage says which Books its Fathers had received in 419 (“for we had received these”). 

      But it is not at all strange, how the 16^th canon of Laodicea which was written at an earlier date (360 AD) includes fewer Books. This is quite possible, if in the meantime others were added – which the canon of Carthage has accepted.

36. This possibility is not excluded by the wording of the 16^th canon of Laodicea, as we have already written. On the issue, it is obvious that we must not forget the fact that the 16^th canon of Laodicea speaks rather vaguely and moderately  so to speak, by saying: “Which (books) must be read”. In reference therefore to the moment of drafting the canon, and because it doesn’t close the canon, it does not exclude the potential for inclusion of other books at a later date (cmp. also observation 3 etc.). Subsequently, the canon in question in no way opposes the 16^th canon of Laodicea.

37. It must also be noted that this canon closely links the terms "divine" and "canonical" books with the term "must be read" in the Church. At the same time, it imposes only the “readable” books that are stated by it, and none other.  And even the very closing of the canon - just like the phrase found at the beginning of the canon -about which we said the necessary points above (4) - defines and confines - "closes" the canon of the Holy Bible.

38. For this reason -and for the achievement of the exactology sought in Science for the sake of also avoiding any undesirable confusions- we would like to note that Zonaras is not right, when he says (interpreting the present canon): "Regarding what books must be read at Church, even the last of the Apostolic canons includes (them), as does the 59^th canon of the Council of Laodicea, also Athanasius the Great enumerates the books that need to be read, as well as Gregory the great (the Theologian), and Saint Amphilochius.⁴¹.” He is wrong, because each of the above canons, as we have seen or shall see, speaks differently. They do not say identical things, and therefore they cannot all be taken and quoted indiscriminately  together.

39. It is fortunate that Balsamon -who, as we know, often follows Zonaras in his interpretations- in this case artfully avoids this linguistic slip (lapsus linguae), and instead of using the decisive verb "διαλαμβάνει" (to include), he uses the neutral and harmless verb "ζητεῖ" (to seek), by saying: " Regarding what books must be read at Church, seek the 16^th and 85^th canons of the Holy Apostles, the 16th  canon of the Council of Laodicea..." and the others⁴².

40. Thus, by following the prompting of Patriarch Balsamon, let us "seek," let us research, and let us also study the other canons of the Holy Fathers, despite the fact that with the present canon, the canon of the Holy Bible is closed. We are obligated to do this, for the following reason⁴³ - apart from the previous one: to clarify certain expressions in the precedent canons and  also shed light on certain points in the matter of the canon of the Holy Bible, so that any possibly remnant reservations can also be withdrawn, and for us to ascertain -if it depends on us-  the agreement between the sacred Canons.

 Final conclusion of the 24^th/32^nd Canon of Carthage

 

Canonical – Divine - Readable

Old Testament

Genesis

Exodus

Leviticus

Numbers

Deuteronomy

Joshua

Judges

Ruth

1 Reigns (aka "Kings")  (Samuel)

2 Reigns (aka "Kings")  (Samuel)

3 Reigns (aka "Kings")  (Samuel)

4 Reigns (aka "Kings")  (Samuel)

1 Chronicles

2 Chronicles

Job

Psalms

Solomon's five books:           1. Proverbs           2. Ecclesiastes           3. Song of Songs          4. Wisdom of Solomon

The twelve Prophets:            1. Hosea           2. Amos           3. Micah           4. Joel           5.  Obadiah           6.  Jonah           7.  Nahum           8.  Habakkuk           9.  Zephaniah        10. Haggai         11.  Zechariah        12.  Malachi        13.  Isaiah       14.  Jeremiah        15.  Ezekiel        16.  Daniel

Tobit

Judith

Esther

1   Esdras

2 Esdras (Nehemiah)

Maccabees 1 & 2  (Latin Text)

Old Testament

Gospel According to Matthew

Gospel According to Mark

Gospel According to Luke

Gospel According to John

Acts of the Apostles

Fourteen Epistles of Paul:            1. To Romans           2. To Corinthians 1           3. To Corinthians 2           4. To Galatians           5.  To Ephesians           6.  To Philippians           7.  To Colossians           8.  To Thessalonians 1           9.  To Thessalonians 2         10.  To Timothy 1           11.  To Timothy 2          12.  To Titus          13.  To Philemon          14.  To Hebrews

Two Epistles of Peter:          Peter 1           Peter 2

Three Epistles of John:            John 1             John 2             John 3

Epistle of Jacob  (aka "James")

Epistle of Jude

Revelation of Johnn

************************************************

Footnotes:

1.    Cmp Metropolitan Paul of Sweden, "The Synod of Carthage in 419," in Aksum Thyateira, Tribute to Archbishop Methodius, London 1985, p. 257 and special footnote 2.

2.   Rallis - Potlis, Vol. III, pp. 368-369.

3.    Or "that is:"

4.   Rallis - Potlis, Vol. III, p. 459.

5.   Pedalion, p. 496.

6.   Pedalion, p. 112.

7.   Pedalion, p. 114.

8.   See the previous paragraph.

9.   The Latin text also contains the defining phrase "Sunt autem canonicae scripturae, id est, Genesis...", which has been transcribed word for word in some Greek manuscripts as: "Είναι δε αι κανονικαί γραφαί, τουτέστι, Γένεσις..." (see Mansi 3, 723-724B and P. P. Joannou, Discipline, Vol. 1, 2, p. 239).

10.In very few Greek manuscripts are there mentions of "three books". Cmp P. P. Joannou, Discipline, Vol. 1, 2, p. 239.

11.The author of the Pedalion (p. 480) only (compare Rallis - Potlis, Vol. III, p. 368, footnote 1) replaces "five" with "delta" (= four).

12.In this book "Solomon speaks (Wisdom of Solomon 7:1 and following, 8:10 and following, 9:7 and following)," which is why "the prevailing view in the ancient Church and throughout the Middle Ages, even among Jewish scholars, was that Solomon is the author" (P. Bratsiotis, Introduction, p. 346).

13.Perhaps as one book, the last five chapters of Proverbs, which are titled: "These are the proverbs of Solomon, the uncollected ones, which were transcribed by the friends of Hezekiah, the king of Judah" (Proverbs 25:1). Compare P. Bratsiotis, Introduction, p. 314. That is, "the proverbs that had not been gathered until that day," which Hezekiah's friends first collected "and compiled into another collection, which was added to the old one" (S. Sackou, The Muratorian List, p. 42).

14.Compare Th. Zahn, Geschichte, Vol. II, 1, p. 257, footnote 1 and P. Bratsiotis, Introduction, p. 353. The author of the Pedalion says that "the name of Solomon appears in the prayer of Saint Chrysostom, in a saying that belongs to the Wise Sirach (19:30)" (Pedalion, p. 114, footnote).

15.On the contrary, this book (the title and passage 50:27) shows that the author is "Jesus, son of Sirach." Compare Athanasios Chastoupi, Introduction, p. 468.

16.This passage from Wisdom of Sirach 50:27 excludes such an interpretation, as it says: "I have inscribed wisdom and knowledge in this book, I, Jesus son of Sirach, a Jerusalemite, who drew forth wisdom from his heart" ("I have written the teaching of wisdom and knowledge in this book, I, Jesus, son of Sirach from Jerusalem, who drew wisdom from my heart").

17.The same applies if someone were to claim it refers to the "Odes of Solomon" or some other apocryphal book bearing his name.

18.W. Michaelis, Einleitung, p. 341-342.

19.W. Michaelis, Einleitung, p. 342.

12. Compare canon 13 of Laodicea and Great Athanasius.

13.  Compare Mansi 3, 723-724BC and P. P. Joannou, Discipline, Vol. 1, 2, p. 240.

14. It should also be noted that there was already a translation of the Greek text before the convening of the Fifth Ecumenical Council. Th. Zahn (Geschichte, Vol. II, 1, p. 251, footnote 1) places this translation around 600 AD and in any case considers it older than the Fifth Ecumenical Council at Trullo (691-692 AD). Compare also Metropolitan of Sweden Paul, The Synod of Carthage, p. 257.

15. Compare canon 13 of the Fifth Ecumenical Council: "And the holy fathers who gathered at Carthage, thus expressly remembered" (Rallis - Potlis, Vol. II, p. 374).

16. Compare also Pedalion, p. 221, footnote 1. The same applies to the corrections of the Carthage canons by the Fifth Ecumenical Council (compare there). Such corrections, as well as some other conditions, we would like, if God wills, to include in a future edition of the sacred and divine canons, in order to have a more complete edition of them.

17.  This is further reinforced by the fact that, already from the early centuries, the Bishops of Africa (and the Synod of Carthage) gave particular weight and authenticity to the Greek texts of the Sacred Canons. A notable example is the letter of these Bishops to the Pope of Rome Boniface, where it is said: "However, since here we could not find them in any Greek book, we wish even more that they may be offered to us from the Eastern Churches, where it is said that the same decrees may still be found authentically. Therefore, we implore your reverence to write to the priests of those places, namely the Church of Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, and others, if it seems useful to your holiness, so that the decrees set by the Holy Fathers in Nicaea may be sent to us from there. With your exceptional benefaction, with the Lord's help, you will contribute to their introduction to all the Western Churches. For who can doubt that the same decrees in Greek from the Nicaean Synod, having been presented by so many different and notable Greek Churches and compared, are the most authentic?" (Rallis - Potlis, Vol. III, p. 612).

18. Compare Metropolitan of Sweden Paul, The Synod of Carthage, p. 258.

19. Vass. Vella, Biblical Criticism, p. 9.

20.Which indeed happened. Compare Pedalion, p. 221, footnote 1.

21. Compare Th. Zahn, Geschichte, Vol. II, 1, p. 249: "Also, the Acts of the Carthage Council of 419 do not provide the desired certainty" (Geschichte, Vol. II, 1, p. 249).

22. Th. Zahn, Geschichte, Vol. II, 1, p. 252, footnote 2. Compare also Mansi 3, 723-724, footnote 8.

23. W. Michaelis, Einleitung, p. 340-341.

24. Th. Zahn, Geschichte, Vol. II, 1, p. 250.

25. Th. Zahn, Geschichte, Vol. II, 1, p. 254, footnote (end), 256, footnote and 257-258, footnote.

26. Th. Zahn, Geschichte, Vol. II, 1, p. 256, footnote.

27.  Compare Th. Zahn, Geschichte, Vol. II, 1, p. 254, footnote, 256, footnote, and 257-258, footnote.

28.  The first two (A' and B') or the second two (B' and C'), or A' and C'? We propose the first two, because the C' Maccabees is "misleadingly" named so due to some similarity in its content with the first two Maccabees (P. Bratsiotis, Introduction, p. 260-261). Compare also Ath. Chastoupi, Introduction, p. 447. Moreover, "the contents of C' Maccabees are mostly neither historically nor psychologically plausible" (there, p. 448). This uncertainty or reservation regarding the selection of two of the three Maccabees does not support the inclusion of these books in the canon of divine scriptures of the Holy Bible. We refer to three books of the Maccabees, because that's what the Apostolic Canon V provides.

29.  Certainly, this is even more the case with the Fourth Maccabees, which is not even included in the "holy and revered" books of Apostolic Canon V.

30.  But we will deal with these in more detail in a future edition of the Church's canons.

31.     For example, the Revelation of John is missing.

32.  The Latin text also has the defining and limiting expression: "Quia a patribus ista acceptimus in Ecclesia legenda" ("For we have received this from the Fathers to be read in the Church") (Mansi 3, 723 C and P. P. Joannou, Discipline, Vol. 1, 2, p. 240).

33.  Rallis - Potlis, Vol. III, p. 369.

34.  Rallis - Potlis, Vol. III, p. 369.

35.  Furthermore, the Lord says: "Ask, and you will receive... for everyone who asks finds..." (Matthew 7:7-8).