Composition and canon of the Bible
B.A. Tikhomirov
The number of books included in the Christian Bible, the order in which they are arranged, and the understanding of the status of individual books vary somewhat among the main Christian denominations. Consideration of this problem is inextricably linked with the concept of the canon of Holy Scripture.
The word “canon” in Greek has the meaning of sample, measure, standard, rule, criterion, etc. Already in the first centuries of Christianity, the term was widely used in various areas of the life of the Church, so at councils church canons were approved as norms of Christian life, in liturgical practice develops its own liturgical canons... The biblical canon is understood as the normative composition and volume of Holy Scripture. In relation to the two parts of the Christian Bible, the concept of canon is used differentiated, as the canon of the Old Testament and the canon of the New Testament.
The collection of books of the New Testament is distributed as follows: 1) Four Gospels (Four Gospels) - from Matthew; Brand; Luke; John. 2) The Book of Acts of the Apostles, written by the Evangelist Luke. 3) Seven Council Epistles - St. Jacob; ap. Petra (1st and 2nd); ap. John (1st, 2nd and 3rd); ap. Judas. 4) Epistles of St. Paul - 14 in total. 5) Revelation (Apocalypse) of St. John the Theologian. There are 27 works in total. They constitute the canon of the New Testament, being a frank, authoritative source of faith.
If there is practically no disagreement among the Christian Churches regarding the volume of the New Testament - the New Testament is accepted by all Christian denominations without exception in the number of 27 books that make up the New Testament canon, in the matter of determining the normative composition of the Old Testament, the various Churches are by no means so unanimous. Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Protestantism have different views on the composition of the Old Testament canon, the volume of some books, and use their own distinctive terminology.
In the Jewish religious tradition, where the Holy Scripture of the Old Testament was formed, its final composition was established quite late, at the turn of the 1st–2nd centuries. according to A.D. The Holy Scriptures in Judaism are divided into three parts - the Law (Heb. Torah), the Prophets (Heb. Neviim), the Scriptures (Heb. Ketuvim), and includes the following books (according to the names adopted in the Russian biblical tradition): Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy - Law; Joshua, Judges, 1-4 Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, 12 minor prophets - Prophets; Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, 1 Esdras, Nehemiah, 1-2 Chronicles - Scriptures. The name of the Holy Scripture in Judaism, Tanakh, is an abbreviation of its three components.
Already in the Ancient Church there was an ambiguous view of the composition of the Old Testament. The fact is that the Church also adopted books from the Jewish tradition that were not included in the final composition of the Tanakh. Many of these books were originally written in Greek and had authority primarily among Jews living outside Palestine. The collection of the Septuagint, originally accepted by the Church as the Holy Scripture of the Old Testament, included the following texts and books, in addition to the Jewish canon: “The Prayer of Manasseh” (2 Chron. 36 after v. 23); 2 Esdras; Judith; Tobit; 1-4 Maccabees; Psalm 151; Odes; Wisdom of Solomon; Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach; Psalms of Solomon; Varucha; The Epistle of Jeremiah; also the stories of “Susanna”, “the three youths”, “Bel and the dragon” (Dan 3:24-91; 13; 14). When, after the Edict of Milan in 313, which put an end to the era of persecution, the Church was able to turn to solving many pressing internal problems, efforts were also made to consider issues related to determining the normative composition of the Holy Scriptures. The very task of establishing a canon of books of the Bible was posed in connection with the need to isolate the texts of Holy Scripture itself from a significant range of literary works, which in the first centuries of Christianity claimed the authority of revealed sources. The Church was forced to get rid of both the New Testament and Old Testament apocrypha (Greek lit. “secret”, “hidden”; at that time in the meaning of works of dubious origin and content) and, accordingly, determine the canons of the New and Old Testaments. It was in the 4th century. The composition of the New Testament has been universally established and does not cause any disagreement today. The composition of the Old Testament was also examined. In efforts to solve this problem in the patristic period, two trends clearly emerged: an orientation toward the Jewish canon and the acceptance of an already established, broader tradition that included books that were not retained in the Jewish canon. Behind both approaches are conciliar definitions and the authority of prominent church figures. In practice, the situation never found an unambiguous solution. We can talk about the priority tendencies of the East and the West, where the Western Christian world recognized the “expanded” canon, while the East was more inclined to accept the Jewish composition of the Holy Scriptures as the canon of the Old Testament. However, in fact, in the East, in connection with the canon, a dual situation remained - the books of the Septuagint, which were not part of the Jewish canon, were not removed from its composition, but were widely quoted as authoritative, sacred Scriptures and continued to be used in liturgical practice.
The schism of the Western Church in the 16th century gave new life to the debate about the canon of the Old Testament. In the 1534 edition of the German Bible by M. Luther, the books of the Old Testament, not included in the Jewish Holy Scripture, but found in the Vulgate that formed the Western biblical tradition (with the exception of certain differences, it corresponded to the Septuagint collection), were placed in a separate block and called apocrypha. The term “apocrypha” as a designation for this group of books was borrowed by Luther from Bl. Jerome and did not carry negative connotations. They acquired the status of books that were not equivalent to the Holy Scriptures, but nonetheless useful and edifying. This position became decisive in the Protestant view of the canon of the Old Testament. Since 1825, by decision of the British and Foreign Bible Society, “apocrypha” ceased to be published in the Protestant editions of the Bible carried out by the Society. Only in the second half of the twentieth century. individual Protestant publications again began to include them in their composition.
The Catholic Church finally approved its view of the canon of the Old Testament through the decisions of two councils: Trent (1546) and Vatican I (1870). They legitimized the entire existing composition of the Vulgate Old Testament in sacred, canonical dignity. At the same time, the following terminological divisions were introduced: books corresponding to the composition of the Jewish Holy Scripture were called proto(first) canonical, books in the Vulgate in addition to the Jewish canon were called deutero(secondary) canonical (as those included in the canon later, “in the second place”) . Both protocanonical and deuterocanonical books have the authoritative status of Holy Scripture.
The formation of ideas about the canon of the Old Testament in Russian Orthodoxy, in its defining features, largely repeats the way in which views on the normative composition of the Old Testament were formed in the Ancient Church. On the one hand, the dominant factor here is the actually established and widespread collection of biblical books, on the other hand, theological reflection is emerging, trying to comprehend and develop an authoritative church assessment in relation to it.
The composition of the Russian (both Slavic and Russian) Bible in its Old Testament part was formed by the editions of the Slavic Bible of 1499 (Gennadian Bible) and 1580-1581 (Ostrozh Bible). The model for the Gennadian Bible was the Vulgate, which determined the composition and order of the books of the Old Testament in this edition. Thus, in the Gennadian Code a unique synthesis of Western and Eastern biblical traditions was realized. The Ostrog edition added to the books of the Old Testament the 3rd Book of Maccabees, which is included in the Septuagint but not in the Vulgate. After this, the number of books of the Old Testament of the Slavic Bible did not change.
Attempts to theologically comprehend the issue of the biblical canon of the Old Testament in Russian Orthodoxy date back to the 19th century. The first official church document that brought it up for consideration and claimed a decision was the third and final edition of the Long Christian Catechism of Metropolitan. Moscow Philaret (Drozdov), published in 1839. The Catechism listed the holy books of the Old Testament by name in accordance with the Jewish canon. As an ideological basis for the authority of the “number of Jews,” the words of the apostle were cited. Paul: “the word of God was entrusted to them” (Rom 3:2). The remaining books that were part of the Old Testament of the Slavic Bible are defined as “appointed by the Fathers for reading by those entering the Church” and, in fact, do not have the status of “sacred”. Subsequently, these books were called “non-canonical” books. List of books in the collection of the Old Testament of the Slavic Bible in addition to the Jewish canon or “non-canonical”: 2-3 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach, Epistle of Jeremiah, Baruch, 1-3 Maccabees, also from Daniel 3:24 -91; 13; 14, psalm 151, prayer of Manasseh (2 Chron. 36 after v. 23).
The publication of the Russian Synodal Translation of the Bible in 1876 completely followed the established composition of the Slavic Bible. These are all the numerous Orthodox Church editions of the Synodal Translation. When at the end of the 19th century. The Synodal translation began to be used by Protestant communities in Russia; it began to be published only as part of “canonical” books. Since then, this has been a characteristic feature of Protestant editions of the Synodal Translation.
“BIBLE CANON” is a human concept
“He who has an ear (to hear), let him hear what the SPIRIT SPEAKS TO THE CHURCHES.” (Christ)
The modern Bible, as you know, is not one book, but many books in one binding. But how much exactly? Asked differently, what constitutes the “Biblical canon”? In relation to Holy Scripture, the word "canon" means "an officially accepted list of books." Which books are part of the Bible?
No one knows the exact answer to these questions. How many “broken copies”! What heated debates on this topic have been and continue to be! But no one could prove anything to anyone...
At the level of religions, these issues are usually resolved by a volitional method: In one religion, believers are commanded to consider that there are “sixty-six books” in the Bible. (A list of them is attached). And – period! Another religion tells us to think that the Bible has “seventy-seven books.” And so on…
...It’s interesting, after all, what the Creator, the Heavenly Father, does!.. Behold, He gave us, people, the Holy Books. A lot of books. Whole Bible. But, having sent the Holy books, the Lord did not attach any table of contents to them! God did not provide an exact list of the Holy Books, nor a list of them, and did not even indicate their exact number!
This was the case before Jesus Christ came to earth. And so it remained after Christ. Neither Christ Himself nor any of His Apostles ever mention any list or exact number of Holy Books.
Why? What is this? Where is the list of books from God?! How can we now figure out which book is Holy and which is “just” a book? Why does God treat us this way?
Possible reflection on these questions suggests that an accurate list of the Holy Books is not so important. After all, if a literal list of the Holy Books were fundamentally important, the Lord would certainly publish it! Moreover, upon careful examination of the Bible, the thought comes that it is no coincidence that God did not give us any list of Holy Books. This was His will.
As stated earlier, God did not create robots. The Lord created people in His image and likeness, that is, in such a way that they could navigate themselves in spiritual matters. God is not a dictator. God Almighty always says that every person should have common sense and prudence. “He who has ears to hear, let him hear!” Christ repeated these words constantly, both while in his body on earth and after His resurrection. They are always relevant for Christians...
So, what is the Biblical canon? What can be said about the Biblical canon? To be honest, nothing. What can we say about a thing about which God Himself has not said anything? You can only offer some more or less reasonable thoughts, which I will try to do to the best of my tongue-tiedness.
The question of the canon is a question of human insertions into the Holy Scriptures. Are there any interpolations in the Bible? Yes, I have. Did Christ know that there would be insertions into the Bible? Certainly! “False Christs and false prophets will rise,” said, for example, Christ. And these false prophets will, of course, teach their lies. And they will write books. A lot of books. Even the so-called “gospels” and “epistles”.
How did Christ warn His disciples against human “wisdom”? Did you give them the exact version of the text? Or dictated the Table of Contents of the Holy Books? How will it be possible to distinguish where the Letter is from the Apostle and where the writings of the false prophet are? What did Christ give as a standard, a template? List, table of contents, number of books? No! Christ took the conversation in a completely different direction.
He said, “By this everyone will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.” (John 14:35).
Why didn’t Christ say that His disciples could be recognized by greater knowledge? Or, by the signs and wonders that they will do? Or according to the prophecies that they will utter? Or other languages that they will speak? Why can true disciples of Christ be identified only by Christian love?
The answer is obvious: Love cannot be faked!
Everything can be faked. Everything is everything, but love is not! All miracles can be easily faked. People are greedy for miracles. And the Antichrist will provide all sorts of miracles in abundance. Christ, speaking about false prophets, especially emphasized their future ability to perform great signs and wonders.
It takes strength to perform miracles. Satan has power. To write books, even in imitation of the Sacred, sometimes simple writing is enough. And Satan and his proxies have this in abundance. But to show love, you need to have love, which Satan does not have. Therefore, he and his servants cannot show love. Everything is possible - knowledge, eloquence, miracles, books, but love cannot. They can only pretend to be loving for a short time, they can disguise themselves like wolves in sheep's clothing. But this disguise does not work for long. Evil always comes to light.
Christian love for God and neighbor is the most reliable, reliable and guaranteed means of distinguishing truth from lies, counterfeit from the original, correct understanding from error.
It is absolutely clear that if it were not for this Divine criterion for determining the truth of a doctrine or text, any Christian would be in a hopeless situation. If the criterion of truth were some kind of teaching, understanding, clarification, interpretation, then no one would ever know or know the truth, because the crafty enemy created such a web of all kinds of teachings and interpretations that no one would ever come out of it got out.
Let the brother researchers who delve into the sources and primary sources, study various translations, notes, commentaries, interlinear translations, etc., not be offended. They do all this well and are useful for many. But, if we speak strictly according to the Spirit of Scripture, in accordance with the teachings of Christ and the Apostles, then it will be necessary to admit that, in principle, for a Christian to know the truth and follow Christ, none of this is needed. You only need one thing: Love God and your neighbor!
The sad experience of many Bible students and various religious reformers eloquently confirms the idea that knowledge, understanding, research, etc. - can be useful only to a certain extent and time. And then the old problems and deviation from the truth towards false teachings begin again. Why? Because love for God and neighbor has been abandoned.
To place knowledge at the forefront in spiritual matters, to base one’s beliefs only on knowledge, means to build one’s spiritual house on sand. Because no matter how much knowledge someone acquires, there will always be another someone with even more knowledge, and the first one will be ashamed.
What are all religions based on? On doctrines. “Do you accept the teachings of the church fathers?” – the Orthodox brothers ask, squinting. “How do you feel about the trinity?” - the Protestant brothers ask a question with a hint, implying that if the answer is negative, you will give the opportunity to identify yourself as an apostate from Christ. “Do you recognize the spiritual food given by a faithful and discreet servant?” - Jehovah's Witness brothers ask biasedly.
What happens? And the fact is that all these and similar religious movements are essentially the same movement, only with different names, and with some specific features. They are spiritual brothers and sisters to each other. But not brothers and sisters in Christ, but brothers and sisters in misfortune. Because they rejected Christ’s commandment to love God and neighbor and put teaching, theory, doctrine, text in first place in their religion. This is their spiritual misfortune.
...Noah, Abraham, other patriarchs, Job, Joseph - did not have any books and no canon. However, their faith is exemplary for all believers. God Himself called them His friends... (“Oooh, what sedition!..”)
The Mosaic Law was from God. The receipt of this law was accompanied by such signs and wonders from God that no sane person has any doubts about the Divine origin of this law. The Mosaic Law is the spiritual foundation of the “Old Testament Canon.” Everything that corresponds to the Mosaic law, the Spirit of this law, is from God. Everything that contradicts it is not from God. Simple and clear. And no “Table of Contents” is required. Arguing until you are hoarse, for example, about how many chapters there are in the book of the prophet Daniel - twelve or fourteen - is, excuse me, sectarianism...
The teaching of Christ is from God. Just like the Mosaic Law, the Teachings of Christ were given with great signs and wonders. And just as in the case of the Mosaic Law, with regard to the Teachings of Christ throughout history, no sane person has any doubt that this teaching is from God. The teaching of Christ is the basis, the foundation of the “New Testament canon.” Everything that corresponds to the Teachings of Christ is from God. And what does not correspond to it is not from God. Simple and clear. And no “Table of Contents” is required. To argue until exhaustion over exactly how many Epistles this or that Apostle or disciple of Christ wrote is, again, sectarianism...
The Mosaic Law and the Teachings of Christ do not contradict each other anywhere or in any way. They are two sides of one. Together they form the Spiritual Foundation, the foundation of the Bible.
In this regard, the following thought is not impudent for me: Sometimes some letter or message “from Ivanov to Petrov”, which allowed the latter to cope with his spiritual problems and find the peace of God in his heart, can rightfully be considered by him as a Message from God... However There is also a danger here that this “Ivanov” does not imagine himself as a prophet of God, and does not begin to utter prophecies and instructions on every occasion right and left. Since ancient times, the Lord warned people not to engage in ad-libbing, so that they do not become prophets and predictors at their own discretion. The book of Revelation ends with a dire warning for those who decide that they have already become prophets. (Rev. 22:18,19).
INTEGRITY, CONTINUITY OF THE BIBLE
From the first days of Christianity, the enemy has been trying to tear and divide the Bible into two parts, into what was “before Christ” and into what happened “after Him.” This gives him the opportunity to squeeze many purely pagan beliefs into Christianity. The enemy is trying to push two parts of the Bible against each other.
Christ and the Apostles constantly quoted from the Law and the Prophets. They really showed that Christianity organically follows from the Old Testament. The teaching of Christ cannot be understood unless one reads, or, moreover, rejects the Law and the Prophets.
It is known that the Old Testament was a “schoolmaster to Christ.” Why was it necessary to give people the Old Testament first, and then the New? Couldn't Christ have come right away? It seems logical that if the Lord had not revealed the law of Moses to people, but had immediately sent them Christ with His love and forgiveness of sinners, people would not have accepted it. They simply would not be able to understand the value of Love. They would most likely say: “What kind of love? We need justice! If you’re at fault, answer!..”
Therefore, God's wisdom, before Christ, sent people a “schoolmaster to Christ,” the Law of Justice: “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth...”. People, like inexperienced children, having “tasted justice”, learned from their bitter experience that problems cannot be solved with the help of formal laws and codes. And then they were able to accept Christ.
Hence the difference between the Old Testament books of the Bible and the New Testament books - the harsh, iron law of cause and effect, and soft, kind love, “covering a multitude of sins.” God's love was built into God's works from the beginning. “The lamb was slain from the foundation of the world.” But people had to mature to understand this...
The Old Testament books describe many cruelties. But what cruelties? Humans who forced God to use force to suppress evil.
Why did God destroy Sodom, Gomorrah and the surrounding cities? Because they deserved it fairly. And they, and their young children, and their old people, and even their cattle - everything was so implicated in evil and depravity that, according to the law of justice, so to speak, “according to sanitary requirements,” everything had to be consigned to fire. Justice demanded this. “And the Lord said: The cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and their sin is very heavy...” (Genesis 18:20)
For the same reason, the Lord later commanded the Israelites to exterminate some Canaanite tribes, by the way, neighboring Sodom and Gomorrah, and repeating their atrocities. Justice worked.
The Sodom region was a veritable nest of evil. It got to the point where travelers passing by were raped. There was no control over them. Life was becoming unbearable. And then God intervened. This was the literal Court of God, that Supreme Court, which is “inaccessible to the ringing of gold,” and that “formidable Judge who knows thoughts and deeds in advance.” Therefore, in some places He commanded the destruction of the children of sinners. As the Supreme Judge, seeing ahead, He saw that these children would not grow up to be good people.
Who would want to be judged by such a Court? Isn’t it preferable to the merciful Judgment of Christ, which, by the way, will bring back to life even those Sodomites destroyed by fire, and, so to speak, “reconsider them,” but is there a person among them who is capable of repenting? (Matt. 10:15. 11:24).
The Old Testament promised people who believe in God heavenly prosperity on earth. And he punished for sins. But, since there were no sinners, no one could really take advantage of the promised heavenly prosperity. It turned out to be a contradiction. Christ removed it. By dying for sinners, He satisfied the sections of the Law of Justice that required the punishment of sinners. Now they, having repented of their sins, can inherit heaven. This is how the Old Testament is fulfilled. And so sensible people can “accept” that for man the only salvation is Christ.
The Old Testament and the New Testament are one whole of God. Neither the Old Testament without the New, nor the New without the Old can be effective. These are two sides of the same thing. Christ declared: “Do not think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets; I did not come to destroy, but to fulfill” (Matt. 5:17). The New Testament is the guarantor of the fulfillment of the Old Testament. In the Sermon on the Mount, Christ said: “Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.” That is, through Christ the righteous will receive what the Old Testament promised!
ABOUT THE WORD OF GOD
...On the night before the crucifixion, Christ prays to God for His disciples and asks God: “Sanctify them with Thy truth: Thy word is truth.” (John 17:17).What does Christ mean by “Thy Word”? Bible, Holy books? No way. In the last hours before his death, Christ is not at all concerned with the literal text of Scripture. It is not the Scriptures that He prays for.
Here Christ speaks about Himself and about His disciples. He, Christ, illuminates and sanctifies every believer. The Bible, the literal text of Scripture, by itself does not make anyone a saint. Earlier Christ said: “I am the truth.” To “sanctify through truth” means to make them holy through the teachings of Christ.
Many of us are accustomed to saying “God’s word” to the Bible. However, in the Bible itself, the expression “Word of God” refers to Jesus Christ. “Word” is one of the heavenly names of Christ. (Revelation 19:11-16).
… “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; and we have seen His glory, as the glory of the only begotten of the Father.” (John 1:14). We are talking about Christ here.
“...In the beginning by the word of God the heavens and the earth were made of water and by water...” (2 Peter 3:5). In this text, the Apostle Peter speaks about Christ, that the earth and heaven were created by the One who later was on earth under the name Jesus. And he continues: “And the present heavens and earth, which are contained by the same Word, are reserved for fire for the day of judgment and destruction of wicked men.” Here, as they say, you can see with a simple eye that we are talking about Christ, because He will judge...
…In Titus 1:2 it is written: “In the hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot change in his word, promised before the ages...” The saying “unchangeable in word” does not mean “God is unchangeable in letter.” Here we are talking about Christ.
As for the letter, God just easily changes it. There are many known cases where, back in the days of the Mosaic Law, God revoked His word. Yes, God can be “persuaded.” You can find a “common language” with Him, and He will cancel the punishment that He has assigned to the sinner if he repents. (Jonah 4:10,11. Isaiah 27:5. ...Similar texts are the complete Bible.)
“Unchangeable in word” means UNCHANGEABLE GOD IN CHRIST. The salvation that God gives people through Christ will never change. God will never change his mind to have mercy and forgive repentant people. “Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.” (Heb. 13:8).
… “For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And there is no creature hidden from Him, but everything is naked and open before His eyes: to Him we will give an account.” (Hebrews 4:12,13). What is this talking about? About the Bible? To whom will we all give an account? Bible? Before whose eyes is everything open and naked? Before the Bible? No, before Christ! We will all give an account to Christ! His Teaching penetrates “to the division of soul and spirit, joints and marrow.”
Christ is our “sacred canon.” Just as using images “for the effectiveness of prayer” actually means belittling the importance of God’s Spirit, so to seek an “exact list” of holy books means to be weak in the Spirit of the Lord Christ.
"...THE SPIRIT SPEAKS TO THE CHURCHES..."
“The Spirit clearly says that in the last times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons.” (1 Timothy 4:1) Not the literal, word-by-word texts of the epistles of James or Paul, and not the works of the “fathers and anointed ones,” but the Spirit speaks to the Churches. Not the letter, but the Spirit.
The Spirit speaks clearly! In Revelation, in the Message to the seven churches, Christ directly dictated “What the Spirit Says to the Churches.” What Spirit? The one that is from Christ. The spirit of love, the sacrifice of Christ. This is the “measure of canonicity.” Whatever is in the Spirit of Christ is of Him.
“He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches...” The Spirit of Christ specifically says what He hates: murder, lying, immorality, theft, idolatry, association with demons...
If you are righteous, you stand for righteousness, it means that you are in the same “church” with Noah, Daniel, Job, Abraham, and the Apostles. This means that you “read the canonical Scripture.” And if you are a sinner and do not want to repent of your sins before God, then what difference does it make to you exactly how many Epistles the Apostle Paul wrote, or how the book of Baruch should be viewed? In any case, since you do not want to strive for righteousness, you are a dead man, even if you know by heart the entire canon and all the interpretations to it...
“Blessed are they who keep His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may enter into the city through the gates. And outside are dogs, and sorcerers, and fornicators, and murderers, and idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices iniquity.” (Apocalypse 22:14,15)
Forty Questions About the Bible
What to read in Church?
The first Christians, as you might guess, had nothing to do with the decisions of the rabbis, therefore, about the Christian canon of Scripture in the 1st century. It's too early to say. Actually, the desire to compile your own list of biblical books appeared over time for exactly the same reason: various sects and heresies began to arise that offered their own sacred books, and believers had to be protected from these books. That's why we had to make lists. They are found in the works of the Church Fathers who lived in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th centuries. — Justin the Philosopher, Irenaeus of Lyons, Clement of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem and others. There is also an anonymous list of books, called the “Muratorian Canon” (after the name of the person who discovered it in modern times), dated to the end of the 2nd century. This is already enough to draw conclusions about which books Christians considered sacred in the very first centuries of their history.
But for any person who begins to compare these lists with each other, they will most likely cause bewilderment: why do they diverge so noticeably and why do the fathers themselves seem not to notice these discrepancies? It would be understandable if one theologian said: “I consider the epistles of Clement of Rome to be part of the New Testament,” and the second answered him: “No, they are in no way included there, just like the Revelation of John the Theologian” (precisely such diversity we find opinions in different sources). But there were no disputes, it was just that some included these books and others did not. Thus, Western lists often omitted the Epistle to the Hebrews, which is not like all the other New Testament Epistles, and the Eastern ones - the Revelation of John the Theologian, which is very difficult for the average believer to understand.
But in all these lists, without exception, in the New Testament part we will find the four Gospels known to us, the book of Acts and almost all of the Epistles of Paul. They may lack the Epistle to the Hebrews, the book of Revelation and part of the Council Epistles. Origen already at the beginning of the 3rd century. listed these four Gospels, “which are only accepted unconditionally in the Church of God.” And in the 4th century. Cyril of Jerusalem pointed out: “The New Testament includes only four Gospels, and the rest have false names and are harmful. The Manichaeans wrote the Gospel of
Thomas, which, defaming the goodness of the name of the Gospel, destroys the souls of simpletons. Take also the Acts of the twelve Apostles and with them the seven Council Epistles: James, Peter, John and Jude; and as a seal on all of them and the last works of the disciples, the fourteen Epistles of Paul.”
At the same time, the early lists may have included some other texts that are not today part of the New Testament: the Epistles of the Apostle Barnabas and Clement of Rome, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache (otherwise called the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles), and the Revelation of Peter. There was also no complete unity regarding the Old Testament: some proposed a short list that coincided with the Jewish canon, while others offered a complete list, including all or at least some of the books of the Septuagint. So all the discrepancies do not change the overall picture: what Christians believed, what they told about God and Jesus Christ.
Apparently, the fathers sought not so much to give an unambiguous rule for all times, but to indicate to their flock which books should be accepted as sacred and which should not. For example, in the 4th century. Saint Athanasius of Alexandria, in his 39th Feast Epistle, lists the books “canonized” (this is the first mention in Christian literature of the canon as a list of sacred books) and “not canonized, but intended by the fathers for reading.” The first category includes all the books of the Jewish canon, except Esther, and the 27 books of the New Testament familiar to us; in the second - Esther, the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach, Tobit, Judith, as well as the books “Didache” and “Shepherd” of Hermas adjacent to the New Testament corpus. All other books, says Saint Athanasius, should not be read, but he does not provide a list of these unnecessary books. Does this mean that he rejects, for example, the Books of Maccabees? Not necessary. Perhaps they were simply not available in this place and at this time, and therefore there was no point in talking about them.
By the way, for some reason, among the Dead Sea manuscripts there is no book of Esther, the only one of all biblical books. Maybe this is just an accident, or perhaps this book confused people even then - there was too much hatred for enemies in it... But we can only make assumptions about this.
As a result of all these arguments, by the 4th–5th centuries. all Christian communities agreed to recognize in the New Testament 27 books that we still find today in any Bible except the Ethiopian. The Ethiopians added to their New Testament works associated with the name of Clement of Rome (Epistle and Synod), as well as books called Promises and Didascalia. In terms of the Old Testament, the Ethiopians are also quite original: they include in it the books of Jubilees and Enoch, which are considered apocryphal in the rest of the world. This feature of their church tradition testifies to those ancient times when the biblical canon had not yet been fully formed.
Canon of the Books of Holy Scripture
The word canon (kanonos) in Greek literally means "reed ". In ancient times, measuring sticks were made from reeds, which were used for land surveying. Over time, this word began to generally mean a norm, measure, standard . In the Church, canons are the rules governing the life of a church organization . In relation to the Holy Scriptures, the canon is the list of books officially accepted by the Church that the Church recognizes as inspired . These books are called canonical. New books cannot be added to the canon of Holy Scripture and nothing can be taken away from it...
Depending on the time of writing, the books of Holy Scripture are divided into “two sections.” “Those Holy Books that were written before the Nativity of Christ are called the Books of the Old Testament, and those that were written after the Nativity of Christ are called the books of the New Testament . The word “ covenant (Heb.?)” means first of all “contract, agreement, alliance .” But since the promises of God were directed to the future and Israel was to inherit the benefits associated with them, the word was translated into Greek as diatheke , that is, “covenant or testament .”
Holy books of the Old Testament
The Old Testament is “ the ancient union of God with man ,” the essence of which is “ that God promised men a Divine Savior and prepared them to accept Him through gradual revelations, through prophecies and transformations . The very name “Old Testament” was introduced by St. ap. Paul (Heb. 8:13).
The canon of the books of the Old Testament “The Christian Church received ... from the Old Testament Jewish Church.” Although the canon of the books of the Old Testament was finally approved at the Council of Laodicea in 364 and the Council of Carthage in 397 , in fact the Church has used the Old Testament canon in its present form since ancient times. Yes, St. Melito of Sardis, in a Letter to Anesimius, dating from about 170, already gives a list of books of the Old Testament that almost completely coincides with that approved in the 4th century.
The books of the Old Testament " can be divided into the following four categories":
a) “ The books of the law, which constitute the main foundation of the Old Testament .” These books include: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. “Jesus Christ himself gives these books the general name of the Law of Moses (Luke 24:44).”
6) Historical books, “which contain primarily the history of piety” : Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther .
c) Teaching books, “which contain the teaching of piety ”: the book of Job, Psalms, Proverbs of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs .
d) Prophetic books, “which contain prophecies or predictions about the future , and especially about Jesus Christ ”: the books of the great prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Daniel , as well as the books of the twelve minor prophets Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi .
In its editions of the Bible, the Orthodox Church places several non-canonical books in the Old Testament : 1st, 2nd and 3rd Maccabees, 2nd and 3rd Esdras, Tobit, Baruch, Judith, the book of the Wisdom of Solomon, the book of the Wisdom of Jesus, Son of Sirach . Non-canonical books are recommended by the Church for edifying reading and enjoy great religious and moral authority. According to St. Athanasius the Great, these books “are appointed by the Fathers for reading by those entering the Church.”
The formal feature that distinguishes non-canonical books from canonical ones is the language in which these books reached p . All the canonical books of the Old Testament have been preserved in Hebrew , while the non-canonical books have come down to us in Greek , with the exception of the 3rd book of Ezra, which has been preserved in a Latin translation .
In the 3rd century. BC, most of the books of the Old Testament were translated from Hebrew into Greek at the request of the Egyptian king Philadelphus Ptolemy . According to legend, the translation was carried out by seventy Jewish interpreters , which is why the Greek translation of the Old Testament was called “ Septuagiant .” The Orthodox Church assigns to the Greek text of the Old Testament no less authority than the Hebrew text. Using the Old Testament books, the Church relies equally on both the Hebrew and the Greek text.
History of the Old Testament canon in the Christian Church
The period of the apostolic men (I - III centuries).
View of the Eastern Church in the 1st – 3rd centuries. on the Old Testament canon was expressed by Melito and Origen, as well as by the compilers of the Peshitta translation. Its essence is that the teachers of the Eastern Church made a distinction between canonical and non-canonical books, without recognizing the latter as divinely inspired and not including them in the lists of the sacred books of the Old Testament
Meliton, ep. Sardinian
(+170) specially traveled to Palestine to visit the Jews, and in a letter to his brother Onesimus, he was the first of the ancient church writers to give a list of the canonical books of the Old Testament. The books of Esther, Nehemiah and Lamentations are not included in this list. But the book of Nehemiah was most likely connected to the book of Ezra (especially since some ancient exegetes called it the second book of Ezra), and the book of Lamentations was connected to the book of Jeremiah. The absence of Esther may be due to the fact that there was controversy among the Jews regarding the merits of this book.
Origen
(+254) when explaining the first psalm, lists the Old Testament canonical books and notes that their number (22 books) corresponds to the number of letters of the Hebrew alphabet. True, in Origen’s list the book of 12 minor prophets is omitted, but scientists explain this omission as a copyist error, since without this book Origen has only 21 books. The book of Jeremiah is joined by Lamentations and the Epistle; the latter book is missing from the modern Jewish canon. Origen further notes that in addition to the (canonical) books he listed, the Jews also have other books, for example. Maccabees, but they do not accept it into the canon among the 22 books. Elsewhere, Origen speaks of the books of Tobit, Judith, the Wisdom of Solomon and the Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach and notes that they should be read by the catechumens.
The ancient Syriac translation of the Peshitta, made from the Hebrew text at the beginning or middle of the 2nd century AD, did not include non-canonical books, since the Rev. Ephraim the Syrian gives interpretations of all Old Testament canonical books, but does not interpret non-canonical books. Later, non-canonical books were transferred to the Peshitta from the Septuagint.
Representatives of the Western Church of the 1st – 3rd centuries, in the absence of their connections with learned Jews, did not have a clear idea of their canon and its difference from the composition of the Greek copies of the Bible. Not knowing the Hebrew language, they were forced to study the Old Testament books only from the translation of the LXX interpreters or the Old Latin translation compiled from it, and, not seeing in these lists the distinction between canonical and non-canonical books, they all considered them equally authoritative. Thus, non-canonical books were quoted as “Scripture” by St. Clement of Rome, St. Irenaeus of Lyon, Tertullian, sschmch. Cyprian (the latter quotes all non-canonical books except Judith).
Patristic period (IV – V centuries).
Views on the Old Testament canonical and non-canonical books, established in the Eastern and Western Churches in the first three centuries, remained unchanged in the second period. Thus, the fathers and councils of the Eastern Church of this period recognized the difference in authority and dignity of canonical and non-canonical books, while the fathers and councils of the Western Church, with the exception of Hilary, Jerome and Rufinus, did not make such a distinction.
Views of the Eastern Fathers and Councils of the 4th – 5th centuries. on the Old Testament canon are especially clearly stated in the 60th rule of the Council of Laodicea (360), in the 39th Easter Epistle of St. Athanasius of Alexandria, in the 4th catechism of St. Cyril of Jerusalem and in some other monuments.
Council of Laodicea
(360) In the 39th canon he used the term “canonical books” for the first time and decided not to read non-canonical books in the church. Canon 60 of the same council specifies the number and list of canonical books of the Old Testament and prescribes reading them in church. In this list of canonical books, together with the book of St. Jeremiah, Lamentations, Baruch and the Epistle are counted as one, the last two of which are absent from the Jewish canon. Non-canonical books are not listed by the Council of Laodicea.
St. Athanasius the Great
(+373) in his 39th letter on the feasts, written by him in 365, i.e. shortly after the Council of Laodicea, distinguishes three categories of Old Testament books: canonical, non-canonical and apocryphal. Canonical books are “divinely inspired.” He gives a list of Old Testament (and New Testament) canonical books almost the same as in the 60th rule of the Council of Laodicea, with the addition of book. Lamentations, Baruch and the Epistles to the book of Jeremiah: but Ruth is considered separate from the book of Judges and the book is omitted. Esther, which is then mentioned among the non-canonical books. The total number of canonical books of the Old Testament by St. Athanasius 22, “for as many letters as I have heard are used by the Jews,” he writes.
After listing the canonical books of St. Athanasius writes about the merits of non-canonical and apocryphal books. Non-canonical books (the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith and Tobit) are assigned to them for reading by the catechumens, as useful and edifying for Christian education. Apocryphal books are completely rejected as forged books written by heretics and misleading the common people.
St. Cyril of Jerusalem
(+386) in his 4th catechism gives a list of 22 books of the Old Testament, almost identical to the catalog of St.
Afanasia. Unlike St. Athanasius St. Kirill divides all books into two categories: “divine” books and “apocryphal” ones. He classifies the Book of Esther as a canonical book and does not list non-canonical books at all. St. Gregory the Theologian
( +389) and St.
Amphilochius of Iconium
(+394), who doubt only the canonical merits of the book of Esther.
At Rev. Ephraim the Syrian (+373) and Blessed. Theodoret (+458) can be seen as the voice of the tradition of the Antiochian Church. When explaining the Old Testament books, they do not interpret non-canonical books, but only canonical ones.
Thus, the eastern councils and fathers of the 4th–5th centuries. In general, they give identical lists of the books of the Old Testament, discrepancies occur only in some details. Thus, the book of Esther was excluded by some from the canon and was even placed among non-canonical books, while the book. Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah were added to the canon. It is possible that these private disagreements occurred under the influence of the fact that Jews had doubts and disputes regarding the canonical dignity of some Old Testament books, but partly these disagreements can also be explained by the personal views of the fathers and teachers of the Eastern Church on this or that book of the Old Testament.
In the Western Church in the 4th – 5th centuries. The view of non-canonical books as equal to canonical books became even more established.
On the decree of Pope Damasus
from 374 “On accepted and not accepted books” after the canonical books, non-canonical ones are listed: Wisdom of Solomon, book. Jesus son of Sirach, Tobit, Judith and two Maccabees.
played an exceptional role in the formation of the Western view of the Old Testament canon . Augustine
(+430). In the essay “On Christian Doctrine,” he lists the canonical books of the Old Testament (except for the book of Lamentations) and, together with the books of the Jewish canon, names 6 non-canonical books: Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, the Wisdom of Solomon and the Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach. These books are blessed. Augustine advises Christians to read and beware of the apocrypha, in which truth is mixed with lies.
The same list of Old Testament books was adopted at three African councils, at which Blessed. Augustine was chairman or member: Hippo (393) and two Carthaginian (397 and 419) and in the decrees of the Roman popes: Innocent I (from 405) and Gelasius (from 495).
The Eastern view of canonical and non-canonical books was not accepted in the West, although this view was well known there in the patristic period, as can be seen from the writings of Hilary of Pictavius, Rufinus, Presbyter of Aquileia and Blessed. Jerome, who recognized 22 canonical books (with minor discrepancies among themselves).
The medieval period in the history of the Old Testament canon (VI – XVI centuries).
John of Damascus
(+754) in his dogmatic work “On the Orthodox Faith” defines the composition of the Old Testament canon, listing only those books that were present in the Jewish canon. Book Baruch and the Epistles of Jeremiah, which were previously sometimes found in lists of canonical books, are not on his list.
In the Western Church, the question of the Old Testament canon was finally resolved at the Council of Trent. Council of Trent
(1545 - 1563) was convened in connection with the Reformation and the spread among Protestants of the view of non-canonical books as apocrypha. In contrast to this view, the doctrine of the complete equality of the canonical and non-canonical books of the Old Testament, which was clearly and definitely expressed at the Council of Trent on April 8, 1546, finally triumphed in the Catholic Church:
“If anyone does not recognize as sacred and canonical whole books, with all their parts, as they are usually read in the Catholic Church and contained in the ancient Latin Vulgate, and deliberately and persistently rejects the established traditions, let him be anathema.”
The Old Testament books, which the Council of Trent considers canonical, include the following non-canonical books: book. Baruch, The Epistle of Jeremiah; 1 and 2 Maccabees; Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach and non-canonical additions in the books of Daniel and Esther.
After the Council of Trent, the doctrine of protocanonical
and
the Deuterocanonical
books, later recognized by all Catholic theologians. This doctrine was intended to express the idea of the equality of authority of canonical and non-canonical books and at the same time explain the differences that exist between them. According to this teaching, the division of the Old Testament books into books of the 1st and 2nd canons indicates a difference not in authority, but in the time of recognition of these books as canonical. Protocanonical books are those books that were first accepted into the canon because their divine origin and authority were never in doubt. At the same time, the Deuterocanonical books, i.e. those in second place in the canon are those books about which more or less strong doubt existed in the local churches for some period of time, but which, after careful study, were awarded recognition by the Universal Church.
The fourth period in the history of the Old Testament canon in the Christian church embraces new and modern times: (XVII - XX centuries).
During this period in Western Europe, the Protestant view of the canon of the Old Testament was developing and gaining more and more weight, according to which the content of the Old Testament part of the Bible must fully correspond to the Jewish canon, as a result of which non-canonical books are declared apocrypha, and then completely excluded from editions of the Bible. The spread of these Protestant views became the reason for the discussion of the question of the canon at the councils of the Orthodox and Catholic Churches.
A special reason for this discussion was provided by the “Confession” of Cyril Loukaris, Patriarch of Constantinople, which appeared in 1629. It recognizes the canonical books listed in the 60th rule of the Council of Laodicea, and declares non-canonical books in the Protestant spirit to be “apocrypha.” This “Confession” was condemned at the councils of Constantinople and Jerusalem (both councils took place in 1672), which discussed the issue of the Old Testament canon.
Jerusalem Cathedral
under Patriarch Dositheus, he called non-canonical books (the Wisdom of Solomon, Judith, Tobit, the history of the dragon and Susanna (i.e. Dan. 13–14 ch.), the Maccabees and the Wisdom of Sirach) “true parts of Scripture.” This definition of the Jerusalem Council, formed as a reaction to the extremes of the Protestant judgments of Cyril Lucaris, actually expresses a view of the Old Testament canon close to the Catholic one.
But the Council of Constantinople
spoke clearly about the non-canonical books of the Old Testament in the spirit of the fathers of the Eastern Church, recognizing them as “good and edifying” (καλά και ευάριστα), and this ancient teaching was finally established throughout the Orthodox Church.
At the councils of the Russian Church the question of the canon was not specifically raised. In the catechism of Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow, approved by the Holy Synod, the Old Testament canon is recognized in the volume of 22 books of the Jewish canon (39 by title), and the non-canonical books of the Old Testament are considered edifying and useful for the catechumens, but not as sources of doctrine.
According to all the above historical data, let us now count the Old Testament books according to the Orthodox theological system.
Canonical books:
Law-positive: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy.
Historical: Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 and 2 Kings, 3 and 4 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 1 Ezra and Nehemiah, Esther.
Educational: Job, Psalms, Proverbs of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs.
Prophetic: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel and the twelve minor prophets.
Non-canonical books: historical:
2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, 1, 2, 3 Maccabees;
teaching:
Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach;
prophetic:
book.
Baruch, the Epistle of Jeremiah and the 3rd book of Ezra. Non-canonical sections in the canonical books
: Psalm 151, prayer of Manasseh (at the end of 2 Chron.);
3 :25-95 and 13 – 14 ch. books of Daniel; Esther. eleven ; 3:13 ; 4:17 ; 5 :1; 8:13 ; 10 :3;
non-canonical addition to the book. Job - after 42, 17. All these sections are missing in the Hebrew text. Apocrypha (the word “apocrypha” means secret, hidden) books were called for two reasons: 1) they contained secret teaching, 2) they were not accepted in the Church and were preserved in the circles of sectarians and heretics. The Orthodox tradition calls the writings of late times that arose between the 2nd century BC and the 1st century AD: 1) 4th Book. Maccabees, 2) Book. Enoch, 3) Book. Jubilees, 4) Ascension of Moses, 5) Apocalypse of Baruch, 6) Testament of the XII Patriarchs. These books diverge from the basic teachings of the Bible in many ways.
In the Catholic Church in the period under review, as in previous ones, the dominant view is the volume of the Old Testament canon, established during the time of the blessed. Augustine and formulated at the Council of Trent.
The 1st Vatican Council (1870) elevated this teaching to the level of dogma. The Old Testament canon is recognized as the present one of 46 books: to the 39 books included in the Orthodox canon, the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Jesus, son of Sirach, Tobit, Judith, Baruch are added along with the Epistle of Jeremiah, which makes up the 6th chapter in the book. Baruch, 1st and 2nd Maccabees. Again an anathema was uttered against anyone “who does not recognize as divinely inspired the books approved by the Council of Trent.”
The Protestant view of the Old Testament canon was formed gradually. The attitude of the founder of Protestantism, Martin Luther, towards non-canonical books is evident from the fact that in his complete German translation of the Bible he also included the non-canonical books he cited, which he separated from the canonical books with a special inscription: “Apocrypha, that is, books that, although not considered equal with the Holy Scriptures, but good and useful for reading." Thus, Luther, on the issue of non-canonical books, stood not far from the ancient Eastern view of them.
Calvin, like Luther, separated non-canonical books from canonical ones, but said that he was not “one of the opponents of the teaching of these books,” seeing in them confirmation of his teaching. Zwingli resolutely rejected non-canonical books and their significance for the teaching of faith.
Over time, under the influence of disputes with Catholics and the anathemas of the Council of Trent, Protestant scholars began to examine non-canonical books more and more biasedly and meticulously and find in them “errors,” “inconsistencies,” and contradictions with canonical history and teaching. Gradually, they came up with the idea of completely removing non-canonical books from the Biblical codes. However, non-canonical books were published for a long time (until the 19th century) in Protestant editions of the Bible.
On May 3, 1826, the London Bible Society decided to print the Bible in all languages and distribute it among all nations, but as part of only canonical books. Therefore, to this day, the Russian Synodal translation of the Bible by Western Bible societies is published without non-canonical books.
Thus, Protestants put non-canonical books on a par with the apocrypha, and both apocrypha and non-canonical books are often called “pseudo-epigrapha” (falsely inscribed). However, Orthodox interpreters consider this term unsuccessful, since it does not apply to all non-canonical and apocryphal books, but only to some of them, and indicates a discrepancy between the inscription and the real origin of the book. For example, still blessed. Jerome called the book of the Wisdom of Solomon a pseudepigrapha, due to the fact that it is falsely inscribed with the name of Solomon.
Thus, in relation to the non-canonical books of the Old Testament, to this day there are two opposite extremes: in the Catholic Church any difference between non-canonical and canonical books is smoothed out, and in Protestant societies, on the contrary, non-canonical books are deprived of all meaning and are classified as apocrypha, i.e. e. forged scriptures.
The Orthodox Church, on the question of the meaning of the non-canonical books of the Old Testament, has preserved the ancient teaching of the Eastern Church, recognizing them as useful and edifying, although unequal to the canonical books, assigning them for church use and private reading. Non-canonical books are in the canon of the Copts, Armenians, Nestorians, Monophysites, and Syrians.
