Sources that verify the Canonicity of the Holy Bible

Orthodox Outlet for Dogmatic Enquiries	Holy Bible

This Canon was validated by the Quinisext Ecumenical Council. It is therefore one of the six Canons that the Church has acknowledged, as definitive of the Canon pertaining to the Holy Bible.

Saint Athanasios had sent this epistle as Patriarch of Alexandria in the year 367. In this epistle, Athanasios the Great speaks not only of the day of celebration of Easter, but also of the Canon regarding the books of the Holy Bible. And this epistle-Canon, has been enlisted in Athanasios’ struggles to uphold the Orthodox faith in the face of heretics. This Canon, which was validated by the 5^th-6^th Ecumenical Council (Canon B), was added by the Church to its collection of Sacred Canons and endowed it with singular authority.

Herebelow is the Synod’s text and alongside it, is the translation of the Canon:

Synod text¹

Translation

Αλλ’ επειδή περί μεν των αιρετικών εμνήσθημεν, ως νεκρών, περί δε ημών, ως εχόντων προς σωτηρίαν τας θείας Γραφάς, και φοβούμαι μήπως, ως έγραψε Κορινθίοις Παύλος, τινές² των ακεραίων από της απλότητος και της αγνότητος πλανηθώσιν από της πανουργίας των ανθρώπων, και λοιπόν εντυγχάνειν ετέροις άρξωνται, τοις λεγομένοις αποκρύφοις, απατώμενοι τη ομωνυμία των αληθών βιβλίων, παρακαλώ ανέχεσθαι, ει περί ών επίστασθε, περί τούτων καγώ μνημονεύων γράφω, διά τε την ανάγκην και το χρήσιμον της εκκλησίας.

Μέλλων δε τούτων μνημονεύειν, χρήσομαι προς σύστασιν της εμαυτού τόλμης, τω τύπω του Ευαγγελιστού Λουκά, λέγων και αυτός. Επειδή περ τινές επεχείρησαν ανατάξασθαι εαυτοίς τα λεγόμενα απόκρυφα, και επιμίξαι ταύτα τη θεοπνεύστω Γραφή, περί ής επληροφορήθημεν, καθώς παρέδωσαν τοις Πατράσιν οι απ’ αρχής αυτόπται και υπηρέται γενόμενοι του λόγου, έδοξε καμοί προτραπέντι παρά γνησίων αδελφών, και μαθόντι άνωθεν, εξής εκθέσαι τα κανονιζόμενα και παραδοθέντα, πιστευθέντα τα θεία είναι βιβλία, ίνα έκαστος, ει μέν ηπατήθη, καταγνώ των πλανησάντων, ο δε καθαρός διαμείνας, χαίρη πάλιν υπομιμνησκόμενος.

Έστι τοίνυν της μεν Παλαιάς Διαθήκης βιβλία τω αριθμώ τα πάντα εικοσιδύο. τοσαύτα γαρ, ως ήκουσα, και τα στοιχεία τα παρ’ Εβραίοις είναι παραδέδοται, τη δε τάξει και τω ονόματι έστιν έκαστον ούτω.

Πρώτη Γένεσις. Είτα Έξοδος. είτα Λευϊτικόν. και μετά τούτο Αριθμοί. και λοιπόν, το Δευτερονόμιον. εξής δε τούτοις εστίν Ιησούς ο του Ναυή. και Κριταί. και μετά τούτο Ρούθ. και αύθις εξής, Βασιλειών βιβλία τέσσαρα. και τούτων το μεν πρώτον και δεύτερον εις έν βιβλίον αριθμείται. το δε τρίτον και τέταρτον ομοίως εις έν. μετά δε ταύτα, Παραλειπομένων πρώτον και δεύτερον, ομοίως εις έν βιβλίον πάλιν αριθμούμενα. είτα Έσδρα πρώτον και δεύτερον, ομοίως εις έν. μετά δε ταύτα βίβλος Ψαλμών, και εξής Παροιμοίαι. είτα Εκκλησιαστής, και Άσμα ασμάτων. προς τούτοις έστι και Ιώβ. και λοιπόν Προφήται, οι μέν δώδεκα εις έν βιβλίον αριθμούμενοι. είτα Ησαΐας, Ιερεμίας, και συν αυτώ Βαρούχ. Θρήνοι, και επιστολή, και μετ’ αυτούς Ιεζεκιήλ, και Δανιήλ.

Άχρι τούτων τα της Παλαιάς Διαθήκης ίσταται. Τα δε της Καινής πάλιν ουκ οκνητέον ειπείν. έστι δε ταύτα. Ευαγγέλια τέσσαρα, κατά Ματθαίον, κατά Μάρκον, κατά Λουκάν, και κατά Ιωάννην. είτα μετά ταύτα Πράξεις Αποστόλων, και επιστολαί καθολικαί καλούμεναι των Αποστλων επτά, ούτως. Ιακώβου μεν μία, Πέτρου δε δύο, είτα Ιωάννου τρείς, και μετά ταύτας Ιούδα μία. προς τούτοις Παύλου Αποστόλου εισίν επιστολαί δεκατέσσαρες, τη τάξει γραφόμεναι ούτω. Πρώτη προς Ρωμαίους, είτα προς Κορινθίους δύο, και μετά ταύτας προς Γαλάτας, και εξής προς Εφεσίους, είτα προς Φιλιππησίους, και προς Κολοσσαείς, και³ προς Θεσσαλονικείς δύο, και η προς Εβραίους. και εξής⁴ προς μεν Τιμόθεον δύο, προς δε Τίτον μία, και τελευταία η προς Φιλήμονα μία. και πάλιν Ιωάννου Αποκάλυψις.

Ταύτα πηγαί του σωτηρίου, ώστε τον διψώντα, εμφορείσθαι των εν τούτοις λογίων. εν τούτοις μόνοις το της ευσεβείας διδασκαλείον ευαγγελίζεται. μηδείς τούτοις επιβαλλέτω, μηδέ τούτων αφαιρείσθω τι. Περί δε τούτων ο Κύριος Σαδδουκαίους εδυσώπει, λέγων. Πλανάσθε μή ειδότες τας Γραφάς, μηδέ τας δυνάμεις⁵ αυτών. τοις δε Ιουδαίοις παρήνει. Ερευνάτε τας Γραφάς, ότι αυταί εισίν αι μαρτυρούσαι περί εμού.

Αλλ’ ένεκα γε πλείονος ακριβείας προστίθημι και τούτο γράφων αναγκαίως, ως⁶ έστι και έτερα βιβλία τούτων έξωθεν, ου κανονιζόμενα μεν, τετυπωμένα δε παρά των Πατέρων αναγινώσκεσθαι τοις άρτι προσερχομένοις και βουλομένοις κατηχείσθαι τον της ευσεβείας λόγον. Σοφία Σολομώντος. Σοφία Σειράχ, και Εσθήρ, και Ιουδήθ, και Τωβίας, και Διδαχή καλουμένη των Αποστόλων, και ο Ποιμήν.

Και όμως, αγαπητοί, κακείνων κανονιζομένων, και τούτων αναγινωσκομένων, ουδαμού των αποκρύφων μνήμη. αλλά αιρετικών εστιν επίνοια, γραφόντων μεν ότε θέλουσιν αυτά, χαριζομένων δε και προστιθέντων αυτοίς χρόνους, ίνα ως παλαιά προφέροντες, πρόφασιν έχωσι απατάν εκ τούτων τους ακεραίους.

__________

1. Ρ ά λ λ η – Π ο τ λ ή , τόμ. Δ΄, σελ. 78-70.

2. Ή, ολίγοι.

3. μετά ταύτα

4. Ή, ευθύς.

5. Ή, την δύναμιν.

6. Ή, ως ότι.

But, because we have borne in mind the heretics as ones that are dead, and ourselves as having the divine Scriptures for our salvation, and also for fear – as Paul wrote to the Corinthians – that some of those who are pure might be misled by the mischief of men because of their simplicity and innocence, and thereupon begin to resort to (to study) other (books) that are called Apocrypha and be deceived by their similarity to the true (genuine) books, I beseech you to show tolerance, if these are things that you are well acquainted with, these are likewise the things I am referring to in writing, both for reasons of necessity and for the benefit of the Church.

In view of my intention to cite these things, I will use the Evangelist Luke’s way to present my daring, by saying as he did: “Precisely because some have attempted to re-compose for themselves the so-called Apocrypha and then combine them into the divinely inspired Scripture - for which we have been informed, as those who were from the start eyewitnesses and servants of the Logos had so delivered it to the Fathers – it seemed good to me too, since I was prompted by faithful brethren, and having learnt from the above, to set out herebelow the books that are being canonized and also those (books) that have been submitted, which are also believed to be divine books, so that each and every one that may have been misled, shall know well those misled them, while he that remained pure (not misled) shall rejoice anyway, by being reminded of them.

Therefore, there are in the Old Testament twenty-two books in all. As I heard, this is also how many types there are, according to the tradition that the Hebrews have; the order and the name of these are as follows:

Firstly Genesis. Then Exodus, then Leviticus, and after this, Numbers. Then follows Deuteronomy; after these is Joshua and Judges. After this, is Ruth. And immediately after, the four books of Kings; and of these, the first and second are summed up in one book. The third and fourth similarly in one. After these, are the Chronicles – first and second – similarly counted as one book; then Ezra first and second, similarly in one (book). After these come the Psalms, and then the Proverbs, then Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs. Apart from these, there is Job and then the Prophets – twelve of them accounted for in one book; then Isaiah, Jeremiah, and with him, Baruch and Lamentations and the Epistle and after them, Ezekiel and Daniel.

The (divinely inspired) books of the Old Testament go as far as these. Then again, those (books) of the New (Testament) I must not neglect to mention. They are: the four Gospels, of Matthew, of Mark, of Luke, and of Jacob (James); following these are: the Acts of the Apostles and the so-called seven overall epistles of the Apostles, detailed as follows: of Jacob (James) one; of Peter two, then three of John, and then after those, one o f Judas. Apart from these, there are fourteen epistles of the Apostle Paul, which are listed in the following order: Firstly to Romans, then two to Corinthians, then to Galatians, then to Ephesians,, then to Philippians and to Colossians, then two to Thessalonians, and to Hebrews, then two to Timothy, one to Titus and one final epistle to Philemon, then again John’s Revelations.

These are the sources of salvation (of the truth that saves), so that whomsoever thirsts, might be filled with the words contained therein. Only from within these (books) does the school of piety evangelize. No-one should superimpose on these, nor should they remove anything. On this, the Lord admonished the Sadducees, saying: “You are deceived, by not knowing the Scriptures, or their powers.” He also prompted the Hebrews: “Study the Scriptures, for they are those that testify about me”.

Of course, for the sake of greater accuracy, I am also adding this - writing out of obligation: that there are other books besides these, which, although not belonging to the canonized ones, have been approved by the Fathers, to be read by those recently admitted and wishing to be catechized on the word of piety; these being: the Wisdom of Solomon, The Wisdom of Sirah, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobias, and the so-called Teaching of the Apostles, and the Poemen (Shepherd).

And yet, my beloved, although they (the first mentioned) are considered canonized and the others (the latter) are considered “proposed reading”, yet nowhere is there any mention of the Apocrypha; this is an invention of the heretics, who write them whenever they want, but bestow and add dates to them, so that by presenting them as ancient (writings), they might have a pretext to deceive the pure ones with them.

Commentary on the text

Before we analyze the preceding text, I would like to pause at the last catalogue, in which are mentioned those books that Saint Athanasios supposedly did not nominate (and not only those); he simply placed them in a separate catalogue. And that does not imply that they are supposedly “Deuterocanonical”. (Besides, among them is Esther, whom Protestants consider a canonical book). We shall analyze the true reason, further down.

1. Saint Athanasios wrote this Canon in 367 A.D., that is, a little after the Council of Laodicea, (which canon – as analyzed in the related article – was left open and furthermore, this Council was a local one, in a district other than Athanasios’) and half a century before the Council of Carthage which, as we saw, closed the canon on the “Divine and Proposed Reading” books. This signifies that he had in mind that at the time when the canon had not yet been closed, but was on a course for canonization; and that is why he DOESN’T SPEAK OF CANONICAL BOOKS, but of “BOOKS BEING CANONIZED”. The continuous use of the present tense that he uses, indicates that he himself does not close this Canon; he simply contributes towards its formation. In contrast, the Council of Carthage spoke of CANONICAL books, and not of “books being canonized”, since the process of canonizing had already finished.

2. That he speaks of “divine” books, and yet has fewer books than those stated in the Council of Carthage, does not comprise a contradiction, as they are actually in agreement. And since Saint Athanasios wrote his canon before this council (of Carthage), it is only natural that it has fewer books characterized as “divine”, since the remaining divine books had not yet been canonized at the time. If the Council of Carthage had fewer divine books (than Athanasios) in its canon, then there would have been a problem. But, as it has more, there is no problem.

3. Similarly, there is no problem in the difference that appears between the books of the other local Council of Laodicea, since that canon had not been closed either.

4. Now, as regards the “newcomer reading” books that Saint Athanasios provides in his second canon, we can observe that in it, we find the remaining books that are mentioned in the canon of Carthage, and the Council of Laodicea. Simply because in his time and his territory there were still certain doubts as to whether they belonged to the “divine’ books, Saint Athanasios preferred to list them in a different category: that of “newcomer reading”. The fact that some of them were eventually validated by the Council of Carthage as “canonical” and “divine”, does not conflict with the fact that the books at the time were still “being canonized”; and that some of them remained simply “newcomer reading” and never included in the divine and canonical books.

5. Saint Athanasios’ classification has nothing to do with the Hebrew canon, as is stated by some Protestants that he copied their canon. And this becomes obvious in his words, when he clearly specifies: “As I heard, this is also how many types there are, according to the tradition that the Hebrews have”. He does not clearly say that the Hebrew canon has 22 books; he only says “as I heard”. This is indicative of his uncertainty on this fact. And since he is uncertain, it is impossible for him to support his canon on uncertainties. Even more so, when the total of 22 is produced technically, by the abridging of books, as in the case of the “Twelve Prophets” (“…. For the twelve are numbered in one book”, he writes.) In fact, earlier on he had clearly described the source of his selection: “to set out herebelow the books that are being canonized and also those (books) that have been submitted, which are also believed to be divine books”; and the source of his selections he states clearly as being the Christian tradition, and not what he heard about the books of the Hebrews.

Conclusion:

Saint Athanasios uses in both of his lists the same books as the two local councils, only they are classified in two catalogues, because he has separated them into two different categories. In the books “being canonized” (not the canonical ones, because the canon had not yet been closed) and in the “newcomer reading” (and not Deuterocanonical), where he classified those that he was uncertain as belonging to the “divine” – something that was cleared up 50 years later by the Council of Carthage.

All the above signify that for the drafting of the canon of the Holy Bible, there was a fermentation, a sorting out of the books that lasted up to the 4^th century, and culminated at the Council of Carthage, and was validated later, at the 5^th-6^th Ecumenical Council.

The question remains: If Protestants do not accept the tradition of the Church as regards the books of the Holy Bible, what tradition do they accept?

On what grounds do they therefore judge or reject a book of the Holy Bible?

The information was taken from the exceptional book by the reserve professor of the Athens University Mr. Panagiotis Boumis, Dr. of Theology titled:”The Canons of the Church pertaining to the Canon of the Holy Bible” Athens 1986.