JJMt said:

---

Quote:

---

Similarly, the Orthodox church views the fathers as authoritative when they speak from within the Church. It is no different than the use of scripture. During the debates leading up to the council of Blachernae in 1285 Patriarch Gregory II wrote that there are three ground rules for the use of patristic texts. One, the text had to be genuine and not spurious; it had to be accompanied by a consistent and accurate interpretation; and it had to be reinforced or confirmed by additional evidence from other Fathers. This is generally the approach used in the church.

---

I assume you do recognize that that is a different test than what was used to differentiate from canon and non-canonical books.

Can you provide a skeptic with any basis for believing that Patriarch Gregory II's rules should have any validity for, in essence, adding to the canon? (At least that's what I think you're saying, in essence - that patristic texts have the same authority as the canon.)

---

What test do you think was used for canon and non-canonical books? I'm curious.

The canon is closed, I'm not advocating for adding to holy scripture. But, the patristic writings are part of the fabric of holy tradition. They don't have authority because of what they are or who wrote them but because of the truth they express. They derive their authority as authentic witnesses to the truth... Just as the books of the New Testament do.

JJMt said:

---

My impression as to the tests of New Testament canonicity include the following factors (but please don't hold me to this because I'm not an expert and I'm relying on my very faulty memory):

• Was it written by one of the 12 apostles or someone closely associated with one of the apostles?
• Was it treated as scripture by the apostles (i.e., Peter's reference to Paul's writings as scripture)?
• Was it widely accepted by the early church as scripture (the writings of the early church fathers are evidence of that - but not authoritative)? - Note that the overwhelming majority of the NT canon was universally recognized as such long before the first church council on the subject.
• Do the writings claim authority, inspiration, prophetic power, or the like?
• Is it authentic and is it consistent with other scripture?

---

I think it's kind of interesting that more or less you summarize the canon the way Patriarch Gregory recommended using patristic texts - authentic and not spurious (item 1 on your list), consistent (last item) and echoed by other fathers (this could be said as consensus, which is the third point).

Most of the NT is mute on your second point.

At the end of the day the true litmus test is preservation by use. Your third item describes this. So the standard really is - does it correctly express dogmatic fact. Dogmatic fact, that is, what the Apostles taught and preached, comes first. All of the authority of the Church is derived from Christ, through them.

Which council do you think was on the subject the canon, exactly?

JJMt said:

---

A primary difference between the patristic texts and the NT canon is authorship. All of the NT canon was written by apostles except for the two books by Luke and the gospel of Mark - all three of which are books of the historical actions and sayings of the apostles as witnessed first hand by Luke and as gathered directly from the apostles by Mark.

The patristic writings share none of those characteristics. None of the fathers were explicitly chosen by Christ to be His apostles. There is no obvious characteristic of the patristic writings that would seem to give them any greater weight than the writings of a modern Christian scholar or devout person.

And some of them are clearly ridiculous, such as the writings of Clement about the phoenix. I tried reading some of the patristic fathers simply because of their antiquity and their closer proximity in time to the apostles (Clement probably knew Peter personally) but gave up because of the obvious difference in substance and style between them and the scriptures.

---

Holy Scripture has authority that the Church Fathers do not. Note that this includes all scripture, including the old testament. But since every Christian church considers the scriptures authoritative, what's the point of saying this? It's not being argued.

You should consider the only reason we know what we know about the authorship of the NT texts is because of Holy Tradition. For example, a great deal of our knowledge of the lives of the Apostles is recorded by a father - Eusebius. Most of the NT texts are not identified in the texts themselves. The titles of the books, etc. are much later additions. You want to take "the Bible" as an entity, when for the vast majority of the life of the church, this entity as it currently exists is horribly anachronistic.

As for personally chosen by Christ -- yes. But consider the Apostles replaced Judas with Matthias, guided by the Holy Spirit. The Apostles considered Matthias to have the place of Judas as one of the Twelve. There is scriptural precedence for apostolic succession.

I'm not a patristics scholar (the sheer volume in this category makes this a lifetime vocation) but I've read a lot of a lot of them. The "obvious characteristic" of their writing you're missing is its witness to the truth of the Faith. I've said this repeatedly. It's not true because of who wrote it or when or what the topical matter is. It is only authoritative as it aligns with the dogmatic fact of the Faith. And, just as the scriptures, continued preservation, use, and reference by the Church is what confirms this authority. There is such a strong harmony of the faith across centuries when you read the Fathers. There is a difference in style, yes; but there's an incredible stylistic difference between the writings of St Paul, St Peter, and St John in the NT. But this is a beautiful witness to the reality of life in Christ, that our personhood is not subsumed into Christ but manifested in perfection through Him. The fathers write in their own voices, just as the authors of the NT did. Simply put, I believe you're reading them incorrectly, with a purpose that their writings may or may not be useful for.

Quote:

---

Finally, no church seems to give enough weight to John 1:1-3. The significance of that passage is staggering. That is, the Bible itself is, in some supernatural way that we cannot understand, a manifestation of Christ himself. So, as Christ is the head of the church, and the sole foundation stone of the church, the Bible is also. Those first three verses of John, together with similar passages describing Christ as the Word, seem to me to be strong support for relying on the Bible, if not as sola scriptura, at least as paramount to church authority or the writings of any other men.

---

I'm sorry, my friend. Your exegesis of this passage is not correct. As I've said previously, if we ever say "no church agrees with me" or "everyone else is missing this" we should immediately stop and humble ourselves. There have been millions of Christians, many of them staggeringly intelligent, many of them incredibly holy and pious.

The way you have formulated this borders on bibliolatry. First, "The Bible" did not exist when St John wrote those words. Much like St Paul's reference to scripture to St Timothy is certainly talking about the OT, St John was not writing about the book you have, with book titles, chapters, verses, etc. Holy Scripture is not Christ. Holy Scripture is an icon of Christ, it does point towards the prototype, but that is where it ends. In a passage speaking about the Transfiguration on Mt. Tabor, St Maximos refers to the scriptures as the robes of Christ, shining and radiant. But he also cautions that those robes are not Christ; that if we grasp at them in error we may end up like Potiphar's wife, with the robe but not the Man.

John 1 may be one of the most difficult passages to correctly discuss in English, because St John is one of only three saints that bear the title the Theologian (along with St Gregory and St Simeon). This passage is one of the reasons - he was able to synthesize and express truths about God that are ineffable in a way that is enlightening to us without introducing an error. The language is precise, significant, and deeply meaningful. We should tread carefully here, and any time we talk about God or the mystery of the Trinity.

The word St John is using there is Logos. The Septuagint (LXX) is the Greek translation of the OT and is frequently quoted in the NT. This gives us an opportunity to see other ways this word is used. The word logos in the OT is a concept of thought, reason, wisdom, plan, but it can also simply mean word.

Here are some examples of this from the LXX, which are echoed in John 1:1, the bolded portion of the second in John 1:4:

Quote:

---

By the word (logo) of the LORD the heavens were made, And by the breath of His mouth all their host. Psalm 33:6

My soul cleaves to the dust; Revive me according to Your word (logon). Psalm 119:25

Forever, O LORD, Your word (logos) is settled in heaven. Psalm 119:89

---

Quote:

---

And Moses made an end of speaking all these words to all Israel; And he said unto them, Set your heart unto all the words (logous) which I testify unto you this day, which ye shall command your children to observe to do, even all the words of this law. For it is no vain thing (logos) for you; because it is your life, and through this thing ye shall prolong your days in the land, whither ye go over the Jordan to possess it. (Deuteronomy 32:45-47)

---

Similarly, in pagan philosophical usage at the time (which some of the authors of the NT are clearly familiar with, see Acts 17) the word logos means rational outpouring or purpose of the universe. The Church has always baptized secular language to express divine truths, especially the metaphysical truths such as the formulation of the trinity, etc. and this case is no different.

When St John here speaks of the Word, what he is saying is that Christ is no mere man, no mere creation, but the very reason, wisdom, and expression of wisdom of the Father. He is saying that Christ is the agency by which the Father creates, and the manifestation of the promises of the OT which give light and life to men. This the identification of Christ with the second person of the Trinity. This is saying that God created through Christ. That Christ is the light and salvation and revelation and manifestation of God the Father, that He is God. This is not a reference to the Bible. The Bible is a reference to this.

St Augustine has a beautiful homily on this passage. You can read it here.
St John Chrysostom spends three homilies just on John 1:1! And another on John 1:3. Read them. They're amazing.
Homily 2
Homily 3
Homily 4
Homily 5

Quote:

---

And, just as the scriptures, continued preservation, use, and reference by the Church is what confirms this authority.

---

Wanted to expand on this. St Justin Martyr and St Eusebius give us an insight into the "selection" process of the canon.

St Justin writes:

Quote:

---

For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them...

And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things.

---

St Eusebius says:

Quote:

---

We have thus set forth in these pages what has come to our knowledge concerning the apostles themselves and the apostolic age, and concerning the sacred writings which they have left us, as well as concerning those which are disputed, but nevertheless have been publicly used by many in a great number of churches, and moreover, concerning those that are altogether rejected and are out of harmony with apostolic orthodoxy. Having done this, let us now proceed with our history.

---

Liturgical use of the texts by the Churches combined with harmony with apostolic orthodoxy are the only litmus tests by which the NT scriptures derive their authority.

It should also be noted that non-canonical texts were also read liturgically -- such as the works of St Clement, as St Eusebius describes:

Quote:

---

In this same epistle he makes mention also of Clement's epistle to the Corinthians, showing that it had been the custom from the beginning to read it in the church. His words are as follows: Today we have passed the Lord's holy day, in which we have read your epistle. From it, whenever we read it, we shall always be able to draw advice, as also from the former epistle, which was written to us through Clement.

---

So, again, liturgical and continued use of patristic texts -- with the distinction that these are not considered at the same level of authority as Holy Scripture (and are not used as such) -- also bears withness to their own authority.

My question to you about the council that affirmed scripture was a bit disingenuous. None of the ecumenical councils ratified a canon.

It's a fun and truthful statement to tell people that to this day the Orthodox church doesn't have a bible.

There's not a place in the church liturgical practice for a single book of scripture. The parts of the bible are in various books used in the Church. The Gospels are bound together and are on the altar in the church. The epistles are in another book called the Apostolos, and this is usually on the chanter's stand. Other portions of the OT and NT are in the manaion, triodion and pentekostarion, among others. The law and the prophets are kept separately as well.

Recognize? As what? They were local synods. There are seven councils the Orthodox Church recognizes as ecumenical.

The word ecumenical comes from the ecumene, inhabited land. The councils were ecumenical because they summoned representation from the entire world. Local councils and synods are also convened, and may be authoritative as well. These councils are typically judged by the reception or rejection of their canons by the Church at large.

Ecumenical councils also speak for the Church at large in their canons. Meaning, the bishops specifically say these things are believed by the entire Church. For example, the council of Ephesus references the Creed when they say "Now this is the Faith of the Catholic and Apostolic Church to which all Orthodox Bishops, both East and West, agree..."

The actual texts of the local synods you mention are interesting. Here is what they actually said:

Laodicea

Quote:

---

Canon 59. No psalms composed by private individuals nor any uncanonical books may be read in the church, but only the Canonical Books of the Old and New Testaments.

---

Carthage

Quote:

---

Canon 24. (Greek xxvii.) That nothing be read in church besides the Canonical Scripture. Item, that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows:

(list of scripture, including a bunch of stuff that is not in your Bible such as Tobit and Maccabees...)

Let this be sent to our brother and fellow bishop, Boniface, and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church.

---

So, again, the prescription for these is not as scripture-as-authoritative documents, but scripture as suitable for liturgical use. It's certainly not to the exclusion of other texts, as most Protestants use the canon today (ironically, except for modern commentaries like Louie Giglio or Beth Moore). And, the reason for the canon is explicitly in conformance with Holy Tradition. Why these books? "...for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church."

It's a little ironic for someone who doesn't follow the councils (ecumenical or otherwise) to suggest that the Church that does is not following them correctly, isn't it? It's always good to reread the canons of any of the historical councils, because the primary defense of the Faith is dogmatic fact of the liturgical life of the church. For example, canon 110 of Hippo says

Quote:

---

For no otherwise can be understood what the Apostle says, By one man sin has come into the world, and death through sin, and so death passed upon all men in that all have sinned, than the Catholic Church everywhere diffused has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith even infants, who could have committed as yet no sin themselves, therefore are truly baptized for the remission of sins, in order that what in them is the result of generation may be cleansed by regeneration.

---

Quote:

---

And I wasn't aware that most of the early church fathers, in their writings about the books of the NT, broke them out into separate collections?

---

They don't reference them as any collections, because typically they were not in "books" like you're imagining. They also don't reference the New Testament or "the Bible". I'm not sure why it's relevant.

As you see above, the canonical lists were for reading during church, not for solving theological disputes (those matters were resolved by bishops at councils). Nothing about the various liturgical "groupings" used in the church I listed have any theological significance other than the reverence with which we treat the Gospels. The scriptures were selected by liturgical use and continue as such in the Orthodox church.

It -is- interesting, given the language of those councils, to note the reverence with which some fathers' writings are treated. It is a broad custom (small-t tradition, you might say) in the Orthodox faith to read St John Chrysostom's Paschal Homily at the conclusion of the Divine Liturgy on Pascha.

As an aside, the loose grouping of scriptural texts is ancient, as seen in how the "Jewish Bible" is constructed. It contains the Pentateuch (the Torah), the Nevi'im (Prophets and History), and Ketuvim (writings). This is why the scriptures are referred to as the Tanakh by Jews - TaNaKh is an acronym of the three collections.

We often disagree but I always enjoy reading your posts, K2.

Though I have to ask: how do you find time to engineer while studying church history? No man can serve two masters, you can't both be well read on history and be a competent mechanical engineer (matthew 6:24)

That's my secret - I never claimed to be well read or competent.

K2aggie...maybe off topic, but I'd like to get an idea of what resources you utilize for EOC history?

New Advent - a Roman Catholic site - is great. Ccel.org also has early texts. I like biblos.com because it has Greek and Strongs easily available. And I try to read a lot of the Fathers, and Church stuff in general. Honestly, a lot of familiarization can happen just by attending the Divine Services. Frequently what triggers my memory is a hymn or line from Liturgy. lex orandi lex credendi is real.

A while back, before officially converting, I read all of the ante-Nicene fathers. Not sure how a person can do that and not walk away changed.

This book is a great cross section of Partristic quotes and an easy read:
https://www.amazon.com/Patristic-Treasury-Early-Church-Wisdom/dp/1936270447

k2aggie,

Am I right in saying that no ecumenical council actually decreed a biblical canon until the Council of Trent? In response to the reformation and the questioning of the legitimacy of books previously considered to be a part of canon.

But of course, the orthodox and Catholics no longer shared communion at that time, so Orthodox don't recognize the Council of Trent as an ecumenical council.

Yes, that is correct all around.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Though I have to ask: how do you find time to engineer while studying church history? No man can serve two masters, you can't both be well read on history and be a competent mechanical engineer (matthew 6:24)

---

Quote:

---

That's my secret - I never claimed to be well read or competent.

---

---

T&Ps to those people who use what you engineer.

k2aggie07 said:

---

New Advent - a Roman Catholic site - is great. Ccel.org also has early texts. I like biblos.com because it has Greek and Strongs easily available. And I try to read a lot of the Fathers, and Church stuff in general. Honestly, a lot of familiarization can happen just by attending the Divine Services. Frequently what triggers my memory is a hymn or line from Liturgy. lex orandi lex credendi is real.

A while back, before officially converting, I read all of the ante-Nicene fathers. Not sure how a person can do that and not walk away changed.

This book is a great cross section of Partristic quotes and an easy read:
https://www.amazon.com/Patristic-Treasury-Early-Church-Wisdom/dp/1936270447

---

Thanks!