What Books do you call Sacred Scripture?
Following the rule of the Catholic Church, we call Sacred Scripture all those which Cyril [Lucar] collected from the Synod of Laodicea, and enumerated, adding thereto those which he foolishly, and ignorantly, or rather maliciously called Apocrypha; to wit, “The Wisdom of Solomon,” “Judith,” “Tobit,” “The History of the Dragon,” “The History of Susanna,” “The Maccabees,” and “The Wisdom of Sirach.” For we judge these also to be with the other genuine Books of Divine Scripture genuine parts of Scripture. For ancient custom, or rather the Catholic Church, which hath delivered to us as genuine the Sacred Gospels and the other Books of Scripture, hath undoubtedly delivered these also as parts of Scripture, and the denial of these is the rejection of those. And if, perhaps, it seemeth that not always have all been by all reckoned with the others, yet nevertheless these also have been counted and reckoned with the rest of Scripture, as well by Synods, as by how many of the most ancient and eminent Theologians of the Catholic Church; all of which we also judge to be Canonical Books, and confess them to be Sacred Scripture.
From The Confession of Dositheus, available in full here
Patriarch Dositheus of Jerusalem wrote the Confession in 1672 as part of a local Synod of Jerusalem. It is a point by point response to the Confession attributed to Cyril Lucaris, erstwhile Patriarch of Constantinople, which appeared in Latin in Geneva in 1629, but which the Synod of Jerusalem, in comparing Cyril’s other writings, determined was a forgery. One of Pseudo-Cyril’s questions was on the canon. Here, Patriarch Dositheus gives a short but pithy answer. He does not apportion the “extra” books to a separate, second-class body of Scripture, whether “deuterocanonical” or “apocrypha” (which is even still a rather nasty word in Greek Orthodox circles, actually, used solely for blatantly heretical books), but maintains the ancient, conciliar, patristic definition and recognition of these books as Canonical.
Perhaps most interesting is Patriarch Dositheus’ reference to conciliar decisions regarding the Biblical Canon. The summary list of these canons is described in Canon 2 of the Quinisext Council, also known as the Council in Trullo. In addition to the 85 Apostolic Canons, the list is as follows: “But we set our seal likewise upon all the other holy canons set forth by our holy and blessed Fathers, that is, by the 318 holy God-bearing Fathers assembled at Nice, and those at Ancyra, further those at NeoCaesarea and likewise those at Gangra, and besides, those at Antioch in Syria: those too at Laodicea in Phrygia: and likewise the 150 who assembled in this heaven-protected royal city: and the 200 who assembled the first time in the metropolis of the Ephesians, and the 630 holy and blessed Fathers at Chalcedon. In like manner those of Sardica, and those of Carthage: those also who again assembled in this heaven-protected royal city under its bishop Nectarins and Theophilus Archbishop of Alexandria. Likewise too the Canons [i.e. the decretal letters] of Dionysius, formerly Archbishop of the great city of Alexandria; and of Peter, Archbishop of Alexandria and Martyr; of Gregory the Wonder-worker, Bishop of NeoCaesarea; of Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexandria; of Basil, Archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia; of Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa; of Gregory Theologus; of Amphilochius of Iconium; of Timothy, Archbishop of Alexandria; of Theophilus, Archbishop of the same great city of Alexandria; of Cyril, Archbishop of the same Alexandria; of Gennadius, Patriarch of this heaven-protected royal city. Moreover the Canon set forth by Cyprian, Archbishop of the country of the Africans and Martyr, and by the Synod under him, which has been kept only in the country of the aforesaid Bishops, according to the custom delivered down to them” (NPNF2 v. 14, p. 361) . One of the intriguing things about this list, and which is quite indicative of the Eastern Orthodox approach to canon law, is that various Biblical Canons are included in the canons of the Councils listed above, and in the various writings of the authors listed above. Some of these Old Testament Canons are short, like the Jewish canon, or some long, as in the Orthodox Christian Canon. That is, both the long and the short Biblical canons are considered valid. Unlike in other churches, the Eastern Orthodox Biblical Canon has never been strictly defined in a clearcut manner in a conciliar or other authoritative and universally binding setting. In practice, however, the longer canon is preferred, as evidence for it exists throughout Church history. That’s why Patriarch Dositheus’ statement above on the Biblical Canon is often held up as a kind of agreed authority on the issue. It represents the consensus of the Church.
So what does a modern Eastern Orthodox person learn from this? Indeed, what would a modern non-Orthodox person learn from this? What we all learn from Patriarch Dositheus’ decision, recognized as valid and representative by the other Patriarchates, is that, in the first place, the decision-making process is not one which depends upon Biblical scholarship. Indeed, the objection raised to the books by Pseudo-Cyril was one rooted in Biblical scholarship of the day. The Patriarch rejects this, in favor of the longer-lasting and proven tradition of the Church, as represented in the canon from the Council in Trullo. How does the modern Eastern Orthodox tradition view these books? For one, the entire Prayer of Manasseh is recited daily in every monastery, in the Greater Compline service. Another, the Song of the Three Children, which is one of the additions to Daniel, is a cherished reading just before Christmas. Judith is praised for her undaunted faith in God. Tobit for his simple virtues of familial love and care for the dead. Allusions to the Wisdom of Solomon are everywhere in the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and other liturgies. And while some of these books, like even some of those books unquestioned by others as Canonical, can be seen as rather basic or rudimentary in their help to the faithful, it was in fact this very rudimentary virtue contained in them which was their strength. They were, as St. Athanasius the Great said, “appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness” (Festal Letter 39, for 367; NPNF2 vol. 4, p. 551). The world of these books, in the company of the Canon, becomes a different world than they belong to when looked at as separate, as substandard, as knockoff versions of the Canonical books. They were, and are, recognized as an important part of the Canon, and so they are. Their value lies not in something that scholarship is capable of addressing, but in moral, spiritual value, giving “instruction in the word of godliness.” It’s heartening to know that these books are gaining deserved attention these days, textually, and so on, in academia. One thing I’d like to see more of is commentary on them from those with the viewpoint and appreciation that they are of value for basic instruction in the Christian Way, with specific reference to the patristic witness.