/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>691832

Also editions to Esther and Daniel, as well as Psalm 151 I consider scriptural as well.

It does not matter what you think. The Church has already passed judgment on the matter. The Greek traditions consider these books to be canonical and "allowed to read". The Slavic traditions consider them to be "non-canonical" but still includes them in Bibles and read them liturgically.

The different traditions do have official canons (although they are technically not closed).

>>691834

Well then, I am going to start my own Orthoodx Church. Thank you.

>>691832

>as works worthy of reading

These are works worthy of reading, but not inspired. They, however, can be read in the Churches.

St. Athanasios of Alexandria, the Great: "There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. […] But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being [merely] read; nor is there in any place a mention of apocryphal writings. But they are an invention of heretics, who write them when they choose, bestowing upon them their approbation, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as ancient writings, they may find occasion to lead astray the simple." (Letter 39)

St. John of Damascus: "Observe, further, that there are two and twenty books of the Old Testament, one for each letter of the Hebrew tongue. For there are twenty-two letters of which five are double, and so they come to be twenty-seven. For the letters Caph, Mere, Nun, Pe, Sade are double. And thus the number of the books in this way is twenty-two, but is found to be twenty-seven because of the double character of five. […] There are also the Panaretus, that is the Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Jesus, which was published in Hebrew by the father of Sirach, and afterwards translated into Greek by his grandson, Jesus, the Son of Sirach. These are virtuous and noble, but are not counted nor were they placed in the ark." (An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith)

>>691834

This. All scripture is "inspired", but that doesn't mean that all scripture is equal. I know that makes the Prots mad especially but they are ignorant of their own biases. To a Calvinist, Romans and Galatians are more important than other scriptures whether they acknowledge it or not.

>>691835

>Well then, I am going to start my own Orthoodx Church

You misunderstood >>691834. The differences between the Greek and The Slavic Churches are terminological only, not in the meaning. I've quoted already two Greek fathers, similar quotes can be given from several other Greek fathers: St. Gregory the Theologian (Nazianzus), St. Amphylochius of Iconium, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Epiphanius of Salamis, St. Nikephoros I of Constantinople, the authoritative Byzantine canonists Joannes Zonaras, Theodore Balsamon, Alexios Aristenos, Matthew Blastares.

>>691854

>These are works worthy of reading, but not inspired.

Do not buy into lies of unbelivers.

The Spirit also, who is in him, commands, saying, 'Offer unto God the sacrifice of praise, and pay to the Lord thy vows. Offer the sacrifice of righteousness, and put your trust in the Lord (Sir. 18:17).') [Athanasius the Great: Letter 19, 5 (A.D. 333), in NPNF2, IV:546

The divine Scripture likewise saith that 'the souls of the just are in God's hand’ [Wisdom 3:1] and death cannot lay hold of them." John Damascene, Orthodox Faith, 4:15 (A.D. 743), in NPNF2, IX:87

http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/deut.html

>>691984

>The Spirit also, who is in him, commands, saying, 'Offer unto God the sacrifice of praise, and pay to the Lord thy vows. Offer the sacrifice of righteousness, and put your trust in the Lord (Sir. 18:17).') [Athanasius the Great: Letter 19, 5 (A.D. 333), in NPNF2, IV:546

These are quotes from two Psalms (that are quoted also by Sirach).

>The divine Scripture likewise saith that 'the souls of the just are in God's hand’ [Wisdom 3:1] and death cannot lay hold of them." John Damascene, Orthodox Faith, 4:15 (A.D. 743), in NPNF2, IX:87

Nobody denies that Wisdom is divine scripture. Most saints quoted freely from all books of the Bible. But the fact is that I am unaware of even one eastern saint who would list the non-Hebrew books when describing the canon. On the West there was some disagreement, on one hand there were Jerome, Tyrannius Rufinus and Hilary of Poitiers who listed only the Hebrew books while the rest western fathers included the deuterocanonical books in their list. But among the Greek fathers I don't know even one who would include the deuterocanonical books.

But this is only the theory. In practice very few saints have differentiated the books in the Bible when quoting them. It doesn't matter what nationality has the Saint, Greek or Slavic, or when he lived – all books in the Bible, including the books that are not in the Hebrew canon, are used equally.

>>691998

>In practice very few saints have differentiated the books

On second thought, maybe they did differentiate the books. The books in the Hebrew canon have a literal meaning but also a hidden allegorical meaning that is known to us but was most likely unknown to the Hebrew writers of these books. The deuterocanonical books, on the other hand, don't have allegorical meaning. These books say exactly what they authors wanted to say and nothing more.

A note for Protties who emphasize the literal meaning and disregard the allegorical meaning in the Bible: notice how often when Paul uses the Old Testament he accentuates the allegorical meaning. At one place he even says that the literal meaning is unimportant (Is it for oxen that God is concerned, 1 Cor. 9:9).

>>691998

>Nobody denies that Wisdom is divine scripture.

You just did "These are works worthy of reading, but not inspired."

ALL of Bible is inspired. That's why it's Bible.

>>692014

i've been thinking about that lately. The meaning of Genesis 1-11 for example isnt that the universe is approximately 6000 years old, but that God was the creator of all things and that when we breach his will, bad things happen (The Fall, the Death of Abel, the Flood, Tower of Babel). Even the Gospels and the Book of Acts can be seen as allegory to a certain extent, such as Peter drowning while walking on water representing us floundering when we doubt God (and, as one Orthodox priest i was attending under said in a sermon, when we leave the safety of the Church as the Boat of God).

As for the Apocrypha, I'll quote what my current denomination, Anglo-Catholicism, states in the Sixth of the 39 articles and commentary on it by Newman,

>"And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine…" (Article 6 of the 39 Articles)

>"And next, be it observed, that the books which are commonly called Apocrypha, are not asserted in the Article to be destitute of inspiration or to be simply human, but to be not Canonical; in other words, to differ from Canonical Scripture, specially in this respect, viz. that they are not adducible in proof of doctrine. "The other books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners, but yet doth not apply them to establish any doctrine." That this is the limit to which our disparagement of them extends, is plain, not only because the Article mentions nothing beyond it, but also from the reverential manner in which the Homilies speak of them, as shall be incidentally shown in Section 11. [The compatibility of such reverence with such disparagement is also shown from the feeling towards them of St. Jerome, who is quoted in the Article, who implies more or less their inferiority to Canonical Scripture, yet uses them freely and continually, as if Scripture. He distinctly names many of the books which he considers not canonical, and virtually names them all by naming what are canonical. For instance, he says, speaking of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, "As the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the Maccabees, without receiving them among the Canonical Scriptures, so she reads these two books for the edification of the people, not for the confirmation of the authority of ecclesiastical doctrines." (Praef in Libr. Salom.) Again, The Wisdom, as it is commonly styled, of Solomon, and the book of Jesus son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd, are not in the Canon." (Præf ad Reges.) Such is the language of a writer who nevertheless is, to say the least, not wanting in reverence towards the books he thus disparages.]" (From Chapter One of Tracts for the Times, Tract 90)

TL;DR, ALL the books that the Church has deemed canonical in some capacity are good to read, although any part that contradicts the Protocanon and New Testament are to be rejected as heretical (for instance The Book of Enoch, which the Ethiopian/Eritrean church claims is good to read, contains many truths and even proves that there is precedent for the Messiah being Divine in First Century Jewish religion, but also contains many things that aren't necessary for faith and if read without church teaching in mind could lead to heresy)