About the biblical canons again /Περί των βιβλικών κανόνων και πάλι

* Edmon L. Gallagher & John D. Meade,
The Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity: Texts and Analysis.
Oxford University Press, 2017,
pp. xx-xxii.

Ο βιβλικός κανόνας & η Ανατολική Ορθόδοξη εκκλησία / The Biblical canon & the Eastern Orthodox Church

* Ιωάννου Ν. Καρμίρη,
«Η Ομολογία μετά των προς Γώδον αποκρίσεων
του Μητροφάνους Κριτόπουλου
και η δογματική διδασκαλία αυτού»,

Θεολογία 19 (1941-1948), σσ. 53-86, 209-238, 398-431.

[PDF, Greek]

*

Bible canons /Κανόνες της Βίβλου

Michael J. Kruger on the apocrypha & the canon in Early Christianity / Ο Michael J. Kruger περί των αποκρύφων & του κανόνα στον πρώιμο χριστιανισμό

Michael J. Kruger

Apocrypha and Canon in Early Christianity

One of the most common claims by some critics of the New Testament canon is that apocryphal writings, particularly Gospels, were as common and widely used as the NT writings. Helmut Koester is a good example of this trend. He laments the fact that the terms "apocryphal" and "canonical" are even used by modern scholars because they reflect, according to him, "prejudices of long standing" against the authenticity of these apocryphal texts. [1] Koester then argues, "If one considers the earliest period of the tradition, several apocryphal gospels are as well attested as those which later received canonical status." [2] William Petersen offers a similar approach when he says that apocryphal gospels were so popular that they "were breeding like rabbits." [3]

But is it really true that apocryphal gospels were as popular and widespread as the canonical Gospels? Were they really on equal footing? Three pieces of evidence suggest otherwise.

Extant manuscripts. The physical remains of writings can give us an indication of their relative popularity. Such remains can tell us which books were used, read, and copied. When we examine the physical remains of Christian texts from the earliest centuries (second and third), we quickly discover that the New Testament writings were far and away the most popular. Currently we have more than 60 extant manuscripts (in whole or in part) of the New Testament from this time period, with most of our copies coming from Matthew, John, Luke, Acts, Romans, Hebrews, and Revelation. The Gospel of John proves to be the most popular of all with 18 manuscripts, a number of which derive from the second century (e.g., P52, P90, P66, P75). Matthew is not far behind with 12 manuscripts; and some of these also have been dated to the second century (e.g., P64-67, P77, P103, P104).

During the same time period, the second and third centuries, we possess approximately 17 manuscripts of apocryphal writings such as the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary, the Gospel of Peter, the Protevangelium of James, and more. The Gospel of Thomas has the most manuscripts of all, with just three.

The implications of this numerical disparity have not been missed by modern scholars. Larry Hurtado argues that the low numbers of apocryphal manuscripts "do not justify any notion that these writings were particularly favored" and that whatever circles used these writings "were likely a clear minority among Christians of the second and third centuries." [4]  Similarly, C. H. Roberts observes, "Once the evidence of the papyri is available, indisputably Gnostic texts are conspicuous by their rarity." [5] Scott Charlesworth agrees: "If the 'heterodox' were in the majority for so long, the non-canonical gospels should have been preserved in greater numbers in Egypt." [6]

Frequency of citation. While scholars typically focus on whether apocryphal books are cited, they have not paid sufficient attention to how often they are cited in comparison to the canonical writings. When those data are considered, the disparity between apocryphal and canonical writings becomes even more evident.

Take, for example, Clement of Alexandria, often mentioned as an early church father who prefers canonical and apocryphal writings equally. However, when the frequency of citations is considered, this claim proves to be unfounded—Clement vastly prefers the New Testament books to the apocryphal literature or other Christian writings. J. A. Brooks has observed that Clement cites the canonical books "about 16 times more often than apocryphal and patristic writings." [7] This disparity is thrown into sharper relief when we consider just the four Gospels. According to the work of Bernard Mutschler, Clement references Matthew 757 times, Luke 402 times, John 331 times, and Mark 182 times. [8] Comparatively, Clement cites apocryphal gospels only 16 times. [9] Apparently, Clement was not in doubt about which books he regarded as canonical.

Manner of citation. If indeed apocryphal writings were valued equally with canonical writings, we would expect such a fact to be reflected in the way these books are cited. Do the early church fathers cite apocryphal writings as Scripture? Rarely. In a few instances, it seems that books like the Shepherd of Hermas or the Epistle of Barnabas were regarded as having a scriptural status. But this was a small minority view. When we examine which books early Christians were not simply using but books they actually regarded as Scripture, then the canonical books are far and away the most popular. This is confirmed by the fact that there was a "core" canon of books in place by the middle of the second century.

Additionally, a number of these apocryphal writings were expressly condemned by the earliest Christians. Take, for example, the oft-discussed Gospel of Thomas. This book is never mentioned in any early canonical list, not found in any of our New Testament manuscript collections, never figured prominently in canonical discussions, and often was condemned outright by a variety of church fathers. [10] Thus, if Thomas was a widely read and widely received account, then it has left little historical evidence of that fact.

Everybody loves a good conspiracy theory. It would certainly be far more entertaining if someone could show that apocryphal books were really the Scripture of the early church and that they have been suppressed by the political machinations of the later church (i.e., Constantine). But the truth is far less sensational. While apocryphal books were given some scriptural status from time to time, the overwhelming majority of early Christians preferred the books that are now in our New Testament canon. Thus, we are reminded again that the church did not arbitrarily "create" the canon in the fourth or fifth century. Rather the affirmations of the later church simply reflected what had already been the case for many, many years.

References

[1] H. Koester, "Apocryphal and Canonical Gospels," Harvard Theological Review 73 (1980): 106.

[2] Koester, "Apocryphal and Canonical Gospels," 107.

[3] W. L. Petersen, "The Diatesseron and the Fourfold Gospel," in The Earliest Gospels (ed. C. Horton; London and New York: T&T Clark International, 2004), 51.

[4] Larry Hurtado, The Earliest Christian Artifacts, 21-22.

[5] C. H. Roberts, Manuscript, Society and Belief, 52.

[6] Scott Charlesworth, "Indicators of "Catholicity" in Early Gospel Manuscripts," in The Early Text of the New Testament (ed. C. E. Hill and M. J. Kruger; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013).

[7] J. A. Brooks, "Clement of Alexandria," 48.

[8] Bernard Mutschler, Irenäus als johanneischer Theologe (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 101.

[9]  Brooks, "Clement of Alexandria," 44.

[10] E.g., Hippolytus, Ref. 5.7.20; Origen, Hom. Luc. 1; Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.25.6.

* Michael J. Kruger,
"Apocrypha and Canon in Early Christianity",
thegospelcoalition.org,
28 March 2013.
[English/Αγγλικά, HTML]

Ο κανόνας της Παλαιάς Διαθήκης κατά τον Μελίτωνα Σάρδεων (περ. 170 Κ.Χ.) /The canon of the Old Testamentaccording to Melito of Sardis (c. 170 CE)

Ἀνελθὼν οὖν εἰς τὴν ἀνατολὴν καὶ ἕως τοῦ τόπου γενόμενος ἔνθα ἐκηρύχθη καὶ ἐπράχθη, καὶ  ἀκριβῶς μαθὼν τὰ τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης βιβλία, ὑποτάξας ἔπεμψά σοι· ὧν ἐστι τὰ ὀνόματα· Μωυσέως πέντε, Γένεσις Ἔξοδος Ἀριθμοὶ Λευιτικὸν Δευτερονόμιον, Ἰησοῦς Ναυῆ, Κριταί, Ῥούθ, Βασιλειῶν τέσσαρα, Παραλειπομένων δύο, Ψαλμῶν Δαυίδ, Σολομῶνος Παροιμίαι ἡ καὶ Σοφία, Ἐκκλησιαστής, Ἆισμα Ἀισμάτων, Ἰώβ, Προφητῶν Ἡσαΐου, Ἱερεμίου, τῶν δώδεκα ἐν μονοβίβλῳ, Δανιὴλ, Ἰεζεκιήλ, Ἔσδρας· ἐξ ὧν καὶ τὰς ἐκλογὰς ἐποιησάμην, εἰς ἓξ βιβλία διελών.

Quated by Eusebius EH 4.26.13–14 /
Παράθεμα του Ευσεβίου ΕΙ 4.26.13–14.



Accordingly when I went East and came to the place where these things were preached and done, I learned accurately the books of the Old Testament, and send them to thee as written below. Their names are as follows: Of Moses, five books: Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy; Jesus Nave, Judges, Ruth; of Kings, four books;[4] of Chronicles, two; the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, Wisdom also, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah; of the twelve prophets, one book ; Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras. From which also I have made the extracts, dividing them into six books.

Transl. Schaff [NPNF2-01]



Ταξιδεύσας λοιπόν εις την ανατολήν, και μεταβάς έως τον τόπον όπου ταύτα εκηρύχθησαν και επράχθησαν, μαθών δε ακριβώς τα βιβλία της Παλαιάς Διαθήκης, συνέταξα κατάλογον τον οποίον σου στέλλω. Ιδού οι τίτλοι των. Μωυσέως πέντε (Γένεσις, Έξοδος, Αριθμοί, Λευιτικόν, Δευτερονόμιον), Ιησούς Ναυή, Κριταί, Ρουθ, Βασιλειών τέσσαρα, Παραλειπομένων δύο, Ψαλμοί Δαυίδ, Σολομώντος Παροιμίαι λεγόμεναι και Σοφία, Εκκλησιαστής, Άσμα Ασμάτων, Ιώβ, Προφητών Ησαΐου, Ιερεμίου, των Δώδεκα εις έν βιβλίον, Δανιήλ, Ιεζεκιήλ, Έσδρας. Από αυτά εφιλοτέχνησα τας ανθολογίας, τας οποιας διήρεσα εις έξ βιβλία.

Μετάφρ. ΕΠΕ [29:93, 95]

The so-called Hebrew & Alexandrian Bible canons being challenged & the Greek speaking Jews of Palestine /Οι επιλεγόμενοι Ιουδαϊκός & Αλεξανδρινός βιβλικός κανόνας εν αμφιβόλω & οι ελληνόφωνοι Ιουδαίοι της Παλαιστίνης

4Q LXXLev^b

The Alexandrian canon hypothesis in modern canonical studies was proposed by J. S. Semler (1771).²⁴ Divorcing himself from the dogmatic Protestant position that the Old Testament had always been the books of the Hebrew canon, Semler proposed that Hellenistic Jews of Egypt had a different canon than those in Palestine. Alexandrian Jews and Jews of the Diaspora were a third party that accepted the books of the Apocrypha in their canon. Semler believed that these books were composed in Greek in Alexandria. Like Augustine, Semler believed that the Jewish translators of the Law into Greek were inspired, which gave authority to the enlarged Greek canon. His hypothesis came to be generally accepted in the nineteenth century (Sundberg 1964:7-40). Since Semler, scholarly research has produced no additional evidence supporting the Alexandrian canon hypothesis.

This consensus about the Hebrew and Alexandrian canons began to be challenged in 1957 with the presentation by this writer of a doctoral thesis to the Faculty of Harvard University with the title, The Old Testament of the Early Church.²⁵ These were the days when the discoveries of the Dead Sea Scrolls were still fresh. I was attracted by the circumstance that scrolls and scroll fragments of books we now call Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha as well as other, often previously unknown, non-sectarian religious writings were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Copies of the Hebrew canonical writings and sectarian writings of the apparently Essene (?)²⁶ inhabitants of Qumran were also found. This appeared strikingly similar to the circumstance in early Christianity as observed above. The resultant thesis challenged the Old Testament canon consensus at two points: Was there really an Alexandrian canon? Was the Hebrew or Jewish canon in Palestine completed (as a de facto canon) before the first century C.E.?

Critique of the Alexandrian canon consisted chiefly in bringing attention to previous scholarly findings that completely undercut the foundations upon which the Alexandrian canon rested. But notice had not been taken as to the effect these had upon the Alexandrian canon hypothesis. The bases upon which the Alexandrian canon had been proposed had simply been forgotten.

Socio-political studies placed the venue for the composition of apocryphal writings in Palestine rather then in Alexandria (Smith 1900; Grant 1923 and 1924, Pfeiffer 1949:63; and Torrey 1945:108). Linguistic analysis of the extra-canonical Jewish literature came to show that most of that literature, rather than having been written in Greek in Alexandria, was actually written in Hebrew or Aramaic in Palestine (Sundberg 1964:62). A Hebrew text of Ben Sira was found in a Geniza in Cairo (Kahle 1960).

The Hellenistic element in Palestinian Judaism is now generally recognized, which was not the case three or four decades ago. S. Lieberman's Greek in Jewish Palestine (1942) and E. R. Goodenough's Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period (1953) were ground-breaking and not immediately generally accepted. Goodenough (1953:1.8-13) told us that Greek names are nearly as common as Hebrew and Aramaic names combined on first century C.E. Jewish tombs in Palestine and that names of Jews preserved on ossuaries from the period of the Maccabees to 135 C.E. are one third Greek (Goodenough 1953:1.111-132). One inscription from pre-70 C.E. Jerusalem, records the building and dedication of a synagogue "for the reading of the Law and for the teaching of the Commandments." The inscription is in Greek and the name of the builder is Greek. Goodenough (1953:1.8-13) believed that the Law was read in Greek in that synagogue. By the third century C.E. Greek was the predominant language for Jews in Palestine. Goodenough (1953:1.80)²⁷ says that, ". . . Greek inscriptions in Palestinian synagogues show that the placing of Hellenized Judaism, as Alexandrian, over against Palestinian Judaism is unwarranted." Thus, it appears that a significant portion of the Palestinian Jewish population was bi-lingual: Aramaic (and Hebrew as a learned language) and Greek.

Lieberman (1942:15) points out the evidence for the use of Greek in the rabbinic materials and notes an "overwhelming number of Greek words" in the Talmudic literature. More impressive than direct reference to Jews using Greek is the inclusion of Greek words, phrases and proverbs in the sayings of the Jewish preachers (Lieberman 1942:30).²⁸ Lieberman refutes the claim that these were embellishments by preachers to dazzle their ignorant hearers with high-sounding phrases. Rather, he argues, the preacher spoke to the people in their language and style and, thus, this Greek usage reflects the common understanding and usage of the time (Lieberman 1942:37-67).

* Albert C. Sundberg, Jr.,
"The Old Testament of the Early Church Revisited",
in Thomas J. Sienkewicz and James E. Betts (eds.),
Festschrift in Honor of Charles Speel, 
Monmouth College in Monmouth, Illinois, 1997.
[English/Αγγλικά, HTML]
*

Helmut Koester: Towards a Christian Bible canon /Προς το χριστιανικό κανόνα της Βίβλου

Philo of Alexandria had learned the allegorical method from the Stoic interpretation of Homer and had applied it to the books of Moses. Clement of Alexandria had adopted this Philonic method and used it with respect to all sorts of writings, including the writings of the Greek philosophers, whom he could also call prophetic and inspired. Clement, however, did not see any reason to restrict this allegorical method to the definition of a Christian canon. Only on occasion, as in his letter concerning the Secret Gospel of Mark that was used by the Carpocratians, did he make a distinction.

The shift that was taking place with Clement of Alexandria and, subsequently, with the great Alexandrian theologian Origen is most significant. Until then, only the Old Testament, as an inspired and prophetic document, called for a spiritual and allegorical interpretation that was capable of uncovering its hidden truths insofar as they referred to the events of salvation. Only gnostic circles had found that the sayings of Jesus were also secret revelations that required an interpretation accessible exclusively to those who were initiated into the circle of the truly elect. The Alexandrian theologians, especially Origen, adopted this gnostic principle and extended the concept of inspiration to the Gospels and to the letters of Paul, that is, to the literature that formed the nucleus of the Christian canon developed by Irenaeus and Tertullian. All these writings now became the bearers of religious truths that were mysteriously hidden in the words of these writings and accessible only to the inspired interpreter. This implied that the apostles who had produced these writings were themselves inspired; they were no longer witnesses of the most important moment in the history of salvation but communicators of deep religious wisdom and doctrine. This provided "the rational basis for regarding the Canon (comprising both the Old and the New Testament) as unified, infallible, and inexhaustible." Because deep meaning could be found in even the smallest word of scripture, the doctrine of verbal inspiration of the entire scripture came into existence.


Ο Φίλων Αλεξανδρείας είχε μάθει την αλληγορική μέθοδο από την στωική ερμηνεία του Ομήρου και την είχε εφαρμόσει στα βιβλία του Μωυσή. Ο Κλήμης Αλεξανδρείας είχε υιοθετήσει αυτή τη φιλώνεια μέθοδο και την χρησιμοποίησε σταθερά σε όλα τα είδη συγγραμμάτων, περιλαμβανομένων και των συγγραμμάτων των Ελλήνων φιλοσόφων, τα οποία μάλιστα αποκαλούσε προφητικά και θεόπνευστα. Ο Κλήμης, όμως, δεν έβρισκε το λόγο για να περιορίσει αυτή την αλληγορική μέθοδο κατά τον ορισμό του χριστιανικού κανόνα. Μόνο περιστασιακά, όπως στην επιστολή του σχετικά με το Μυστικό Ευαγγέλιο του Μάρκου που ήταν σε χρήση μεταξύ των Καρποκρατιανών, έκανε διάκριση.

Η μετάβαση που έλαβε χώρα με τον Κλήμη Αλεξανδρείας και, επακόλουθα, με τον μεγάλο Αλεξανδρινό θεολόγο Ωριγένη είναι ύψιστης σημασίας. Μέχρι τότε, μόνο η Παλαιά Διαθήκη, ως θεόπνευστο και προφητικό κείμενο, ήταν πρόσφορη για πνευματική και αλληγορική ερμηνεία που ήταν δυνατό να αποκαλύψει τις κρυμμένες αλήθειες στο βαθμό που αναφέρονταν στα γεγονότα της σωτηρίας. Μόνο οι γνωστικοί κύκλοι είχαν ανακαλύψει ότι τα λόγια του Ιησού αποτελούσαν επίσης κρυφές αποκαλύψεις που απαιτούσαν μια ερμηνεία που ήταν διαθέσιμη αποκλειστικά σε εκείνους που ήταν μυημένοι στο κύκλο των αληθινά εκλεκτών. Οι Αλεξανδρινοί θεολόγοι, και ειδικά ο Ωριγένης, υιοθέτησαν αυτή τη γνωστική αρχή και επέκτειναν την αντίληψη περί θεοπνευστίας στα Ευαγγέλια και στις επιστολές του Παύλου, δηλαδή στη γραμματεία που αποτέλεσε τον πυρήνα του χριστιανικού κανόνα που αναπτύχθηκε από τον Ειρηναίο και τον Τερτυλλιανό. Όλα αυτά τα συγγράμματα έγιναν πλέον οι φορείς των θρησκευτικών αληθειών οι οποίες ήταν μυστηριωδώς κρυμμένες στις λέξεις αυτών των συγγραμμάτων και ήταν προσβάσιμες μόνο στον θεόπνευστο ερμηνευτή. Αυτό υποδήλωνε ότι οι απόστολοι που είχαν συντάξει αυτά τα συγγράμματα ήταν επίσης θεόπνευστοι· δεν ήταν πια μάρτυρες της σημαντικότερης στιγμής στην ιστορία της σωτηρίας αλλά κοινωνοί βαθιάς θρησκευτικής σοφίας και δόγματος. Αυτό παρείχε «την ορθολογική βάση ώστε να θεωρηθεί ο Κανόνας (αποτελούμενος από αμφότερες Παλαιά και Καινή Διαθήκη) ως ενιαίος, αλάνθαστος και ανεξάντλητος». Καθώς βαθιά νοήματα μπορούν να βρεθούν και στην παραμικρότερη λέξη της γραφής, το δόγμα της προφορικής θεοπνευστίας του συνόλου της γραφής ήρθε σε ύπαρξη.

* Helmut Koester,
"Writings and the Spirit: Authority and Politics in Ancient Christianity"
«Συγγράμματα και το Πνεύμα: Αυθεντία και Πολιτική στον Αρχαίο Χριστιανισμό»,
The Harvard Theological Review,
Cambridge University Press - Harvard Divinity School,
Vol./Τόμ. 84, No./Αρ. 4 (Oct./Οκτ., 1991),
pp./σσ. 371, 372.

Ποια βιβλία περιείχε η Αγία Γραφή του Ιωάννη Δαμασκηνού; /Which books were included in the Holy Bible of John of Damascus?

ϟʹ Περὶ Γραφῆς

«Εἷς ἐστιν ὁ θεὸς ὑπό τε παλαιᾶς διαθήκης καὶ καινῆς κηρυττόμενος, ὁ ἐν τριάδι ὑμνούμενός τε καὶ δοξαζόμενος, τοῦ κυρίου φήσαντος· «Οὐκ ἦλθον καταλῦσαι τὸν νόμον, ἀλλὰ πληρῶσαι» (αὐτὸς γὰρ τὴν ἡμῶν σωτηρία εἰργάσατο, ὑπὲρ ἧς πᾶσα γραφὴ καὶ ἅπαν μυστήριον), καὶ πάλιν· «Ἐρευνᾶτε τὰς γραφάς· αὗται γὰρ μαρτυροῦσι περὶ ἐμοῦ», καὶ τοῦ ἀποστόλου εἰπόντος· «Πολυμερῶς καὶ πολυτρόπως πάλαι ὁ θεὸς λαλήσας τοῖς πατράσιν ἡμῶν ἐν τοῖς προφήταις, ἐπ’ ἐσχάτων τῶν ἡμερῶν τούτων ἐλάλησεν ἡμῖν ἐν υἱῷ». Διὰ πνεύματος τοίνυν ἁγίου ὅ τε νόμος καὶ οἱ προφῆται, εὐαγγελισταὶ καὶ ἀπόστολοι καὶ ποιμένες ἐλάλησαν καὶ διδάσκαλοι.

«Πᾶσα τοίνυν γραφὴ θεόπνευστος πάντως ὠφέλιμος». Ὥστε κάλλιστον καὶ ψυχωφελέστατον ἐρευνᾶν τὰς θείας γραφάς. Ὥσπερ γὰρ δένδρον παρὰ τὰς διεξόδους τῶν ὑδάτων πεφυτευμένον, οὕτω καὶ ψυχὴ τῇ θείᾳ ἀρδευομένη γραφῇ πιαίνεται καὶ καρπὸν ὥριμον δίδωσι, πίστιν ὀρθόδοξον, καὶ ἀειθαλέσι τοῖς φύλλοις, ταῖς θεαρέστοις φημὶ ὡραΐζεται πράξεσι· πρός τε γὰρ πρᾶξιν ἐνάρετον καὶ θεωρίαν ἀθόλωτον ἐκ τῶν ἁγίων γραφῶν ῥυθμιζόμεθα. Πάσης γὰρ ἀρετῆς παράκλησιν καὶ κακίας ἁπάσης ἀποτροπὴν ἐν ταύταις εὑρίσκομεν. Ἐὰν οὖν ἐσόμεθα φιλομαθεῖς, ἐσόμεθα καὶ πολυμαθεῖς· ἐπιμελείᾳ γὰρ καὶ πόνῳ καὶ τῇ τοῦ διδόντος χάριτι κατορθοῦνται ἅπαντα. «Ὁ γὰρ αἰτῶν λαμβάνει καὶ ὁ ζητῶν εὑρίσκει καὶ τῷ κρούοντι ἀνοιγήσεται». Κρούσωμεν τοίνυν εἰς τὸν κάλλιστον παράδεισον τῶν γραφῶν, τὸν εὐώδη, τὸν γλυκύτατον, τὸν ὡραιότατον, τὸν παντοίοις νοερῶν θεοφόρων ὀρνέων κελαδήμασι περιηχοῦντα ἡμῶντὰ ὦτα, τὸν ἁπτόμενον ἡμῶν τῆς καρδίας, καὶ λυπουμένην μὲν παρακαλοῦντα, θυμουμένην δὲ κατευνάζοντα καὶ χαρᾶς ἀιδίου ἐμπιπλῶντα, τὸν ἐπιβιβάζοντα ἡμῶν τὴν διάνοιαν ἐπὶ τὰ χρυσαυγῆ μετάφρενα τῆς θείας περιστερᾶς καὶ ὑπέρλαμπρα καὶ ταῖς φανωτάταις αὐτῆς πτέρυξι πρὸς τὸν μονογενῆ υἱὸν καὶ κληρονόμον τοῦ φυτουργοῦ τοῦ νοητοῦ ἀμπελῶνος ἀνάγοντα καὶ δι’ αὐτοῦ τῷ πατρὶ τῶν φώτων προσάγοντα. Ἀλλὰ μὴ παρέργως κρούσωμεν, προθύμως δὲ μᾶλλον καὶ ἐπιμόνως· μὴ ἐκκακήσωμεν κρούοντες. Οὕτω γὰρ ἡμῖν ἀνοιγήσεται. Ἐὰν ἀναγνῶμεν ἅπαξ καὶ δὶς καὶ μὴ διαγνῶμεν, ἃ ἀναγινώσκομεν, μὴ ἐκκακήσωμεν, ἀλλ’ ἐπιμείνωμεν, ἀδολεσχήσωμεν, ἐρωτήσωμεν· «ἐπερώτησον» γάρ, φησίν, «τὸν πατέρα σου, καὶ ἀναγγελεῖ σοι, τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους σου, καὶ ἐροῦσί σοι». Οὐ γὰρ πάντων ἡ γνῶσις. Ἀρυσώμεθα ἐκ τῆς τούτου τοῦ παραδείσου πηγῆς ἀένναα καὶ καθαρώτατα νάματα ἁλλόμενα εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον, ἐντρυφήσωμεν, ἀπλήστως κατατρυφήσωμεν· τὴν γὰρ χάριν ἀδάπανον κέκτηνται.

Εἰ δέ τι καὶ παρὰ τῶν ἔξωθεν χρήσιμον καρπώσασθαι δυνηθείημεν, οὐ τῶν ἀπηγορευμένων ἐστί. Γενώμεθα δόκιμοι τραπεζῖται τὸ μὲν γνήσιον καὶ καθαρὸν χρυσίον σωρεύοντες, τὸ δὲ κίβδηλον παραιτούμενοι. Λάβωμεν λόγους καλλίστους, θεοὺς δὲ γελοίους καὶ μύθους ἀλλοτρίους τοῖς κυσὶν ἀπορρίψωμεν· πλείστην γὰρ ἐξ αὐτῶν ἰσχὺν κτήσασθαι δυνηθείημεν.

Ἰστέον δέ, ὡς εἴκοσι δύο βίβλοι εἰσὶ τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης κατὰ τὰ στοιχεῖα τῆς Ἑβραΐδος φωνῆς. Εἴκοσι δύο γὰρ στοιχεῖα ἔχουσιν, ἐξ ὧν πέντε διπλοῦνται, ὡς γίνεσθαι αὐτὰ εἴκοσι ἑπτά· διπλοῦν γάρ ἐστι τὸ Χὰφ καὶ τὸ Μὲμ καὶ τὸ Νοῦν καὶ τὸ Φὶ καὶ τὸ Σαδί. Διὸ καὶ αἱ βίβλοι κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον εἴκοσι δύο μὲν ἀριθμοῦνται, εἴκοσι ἑπτὰ δὲ εὑρίσκονται διὰ τὸ πέντε ἐξ αὐτῶν διπλοῦσθαι. Συνάπτεται γὰρ ἡ Ῥοὺθ τοῖς Κριταῖς καὶ ἀριθμεῖται παρ’ Ἑβραίοις μία βίβλος· ἡ πρώτη καὶ δευτέρα τῶν Βασιλειῶν μία βίβλος· ἡ τρίτη καὶ ἡ τετάρτη τῶν Βασιλειῶν μία βίβλος· ἡ πρώτη καὶ ἡ δευτέρα τῶν Παραλειπομένων μία βίβλος· ἡ πρώτη καὶ ἡ δευτέρα τοῦ Ἔσδρα μία βίβλος. Οὕτως οὖν σύγκεινται αἱ βίβλοι ἐν πεντατεύχοις τέτρασι, καὶ μένουσιν ἄλλαι δύο, ὡς εἶναι τὰς ἐνδιαθέτους βίβλους οὕτως· πέντε νομικάς· Γένεσιν, Ἔξοδον, Λευιτικόν, Ἀριθμούς, Δευτερονόμιον· αὕτη πρώτη πεντάτευχος, ἣ καὶ νομοθεσία. Εἶτα ἄλλη πεντάτευχος, τὰ καλούμενα Γραφεῖα, παρά τισι δὲ Ἁγιόγραφα, ἅτινά ἐστιν οὕτως· Ἰησοῦς ὁ τοῦ Ναυῆ, Κριταὶ μετὰ τῆς Ῥούθ, Βασιλειῶν πρώτη μετὰ τῆς δευτέρας, βίβλος μία, Βασιλειῶν τρίτη μετὰ τῆς τετάρτης, βίβλος μία, καὶ αἱ δύο τῶν Παραλειπομένων, βίβλος μία· αὕτη δευτέρα πεντάτευχος. Τρίτη πεντάτευχος αἱ στιχήρεις βίβλοι· τοῦ Ἰώβ, τὸ Ψαλτήριον, Παροιμίαι Σολομῶντος, Ἐκκλησιαστὴς τοῦ αὐτοῦ, τὰ Ἄισματα τῶν ᾀσμάτων τοῦ αὐτοῦ. Τετάρτη πεντάτευχος, ἡ προφητική· τὸ δωδεκαπρόφητον, βίβλος μία, Ἡσαΐας, Ἰερεμίας Ἰεζεκιήλ, Δανιήλ. Εἶτα τοῦ Ἔσδρα, αἱ δύο εἰς μίαν συναπτόμεναι βίβλον, καὶ ἡ Ἐσθήρ. —Ἡ δὲ Πανάρετος, τουτέστιν ἡ Σοφία τοῦ Σολομῶντος, καὶ ἡ Σοφία τοῦ Ἰησοῦ, ἣν ὁ πατὴρ μὲν τοῦ Σιρὰχ ἐξέθετο Ἑβραϊστί, Ἑλληνιστὶ δὲ ἡρμήνευσεν ὁ τούτου μὲν ἔγγονος Ἰησοῦς, τοῦ δὲ Σιρὰχ υἱός, ἐνάρετοι μὲν καὶ καλαί, ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἀριθμοῦνται οὐδὲ ἔκειντο ἐν τῇ κιβωτῷ.

Τῆς δὲ νέας διαθήκης εὐαγγέλια τέσσαρα· τὸ κατὰ Ματθαῖον, τὸ κατὰ Μάρκον, τὸ κατὰ Λουκᾶν, τὸ κατὰ Ἰωάννην· Πράξεις τῶν ἁγίων ἀποστόλων διὰ Λουκᾶ τοῦ εὐαγγελιστοῦ· καθολικαὶ ἐπιστολαὶ ἑπτά· Ἰακώβου μία, Πέτρου δύο, Ἰωάννου τρεῖς, Ἰούδα μία· Παύλου ἀποστόλου ἐπιστολαὶ δεκατέσσαρες, Ἀποκάλυψις Ἰωάννου εὐαγγελιστοῦ, κανόνες τῶν ἁγίων ἀποστόλων διὰ Κλήμεντος».

—Ιωάννης Δαμασκηνός,
Ἔκδοσις ἀκριβὴς τῆς ὀρθοδόξου πίστεως 90.

90. Concerning Scripture

«It is one and the same God Whom both the Old and the New Testament proclaim, Who is praised and glorified in the Trinity: I am come, saith the Lord, not to destroy the law but to fulfil it. For He Himself worked out our salvation for which all Scripture and all mystery exists. And again, Search the Scriptures for they are they that testify of Me. And the Apostle says, God, Who at sundry times and in diverse manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son. Through the Holy Spirit, therefore, both the law and the prophets, the evangelists and apostles and pastors and teachers, spake.

All Scripture, then, is given by inspiration of God and is also assuredly profitable. Wherefore to search the Scriptures is a work most fair and most profitable for souls. For just as the tree planted by the channels of waters, so also the soul watered by the divine Scripture is enriched and gives fruit in its season, viz. orthodox belief, and is adorned with evergreen leafage, I mean, actions pleasing to God. For through the Holy Scriptures we are trained to action that is pleasing to God, and untroubled contemplation. For in these we find both exhortation to every virtue and dissuasion from every vice. If, therefore, we are lovers of learning, we shall also be learned in many things. For by care and toil and the grace of God the Giver, all things are accomplished. For every one that asketh receiveth, and he that seeketh findeth, and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. Wherefore let us knock at that very fair garden of the Scriptures, so fragrant and sweet and blooming, with its varied sounds of spiritual and divinely-inspired birds ringing all round our ears, laying hold of our hearts, comforting the mourner, pacifying the angry and filling him with joy everlasting: which sets our mind on the gold-gleaming, brilliant back of the divine dove, whose bright pinions bear up to the only-begotten Son and Heir of the Husbandman of that spiritual Vineyard and bring us through Him to the Father of Lights. But let us not knock carelessly but rather zealously and constantly: lest knocking we grow weary. For thus it will be opened to us. If we read once or twice and do not understand what we read, let us not grow weary, but let us persist, let us talk much, let us enquire. For ask thy Father, he saith, and He will shew thee: thy elders and they will tell thee. For there is not in every man that knowledge. Let us draw of the fountain of the garden perennial and purest waters springing into life eternal. Here let us luxuriate, let us revel insatiate: for the Scriptures possess inexhaustible grace. But if we are able to pluck anything profitable from outside sources, there is nothing to forbid that. Let us become tried money-dealers, heaping up the true and pure gold and discarding the spurious. Let us keep the fairest sayings but let us throw to the dogs absurd gods and strange myths: for we might prevail most mightily against them through themselves.

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, Mem, 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. For Ruth is joined on to Judges, and the Hebrews count them one book: the first and second books of Kings are counted one: and so are the third and fourth books of Kings: and also the first and second of Paraleipomena: and the first and second of Esdra. In this way, then, the books are collected together in four Pentateuchs and two others remain over, to form thus the canonical books. Five of them are of the Law, viz. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. This which is the code of the Law, constitutes the first Pentateuch. Then comes another Pentateuch, the so-called Grapheia, or as they are called by some, the Hagiographa, which are the following: Jesus the Son of Nave, Judges along with Ruth, first and second Kings, which are one book, third and fourth Kings, which are one book, and the two books of the Paraleipomena which are one book. This is the second Pentateuch. The third Pentateuch is the books in verse, viz. Job, Psalms, Proverbs of Solomon, Ecclesiastes of Solomon and the Song of Songs of Solomon. The fourth Pentateuch is the Prophetical books, viz the twelve prophets constituting one book, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel. Then come the two books of Esdra made into one, and Esther. 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.

The New Testament contains four gospels, that according to Matthew, that according to Mark, that according to Luke, that according to John: the Acts of the Holy Apostles by Luke the Evangelist: seven catholic epistles, viz. one of James, two of Peter, three of John, one of Jude: fourteen letters of the Apostle Paul: the Revelation of John the Evangelist: the Canons of the holy apostles, by Clement.»

—John of Damascus,
An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 90.

* P.B. Kotter,
Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos,
Vol./Τόμ. 2 (Patristische Texte und Studien 12),
Berlin: De Gruyter, 1973,
pp./σσ. 209-212.

Κάρελ Βαν Ντερ Τορν:Η δημιουργία του κανόνα της Εβραϊκής Βίβλου & η Σύνοδος της Ιάμνειας / Karel van der Toorn:The making of the canon of the Hebrew Bible & the Council of Jamnia

«The classic view of the history behind the biblical canon is the so-called three-stage theory developed in 1871 by the German scholar Heinrich Graetz and elaborated and disseminated in the works of Frants Buhl, Gerrit Wildeboer, and Herbert E. Ryle. It assumes that the Bible was canonized in three phases: first the Law (Hebrew tôrâ, also known as the five books of Moses, from Genesis through Deuteronomy), then the Prophets (Hebrew nßbî’îm, consisting of the former and the latter prophets; that is, the historical books and the prophetical collections), and finally the Writings (Hebrew kßtûbîm). The entire process took some 500 years and was brought to a close in 100 C.E. by a rabbinical meeting at Jamnia known in the literature as the Council of Jamnia; there the Jewish authorities reached an agreement on the boundaries of the canon.

Today this theory of canonization is no longer in favor with the scholarly community. Its fatal flaw is the alleged Council of Jamnia. A critical reading of the rabbinical sources has led most scholars to conclude that there never was a Council of Jamnia; it is a historical chimera of dubious Christian inspiration. Because the Council of Jamnia is not a historical detail but the cornerstone of the theory, its dismissal disqualifies the theory as a whole. The history of the canonization of the Hebrew Bible has to be written anew. Most biblical scholars are well aware of this challenge, but they are hardly of one mind about the way to handle it.»

[«Η κλασική άποψη για την ιστορία πίσω από τον βιβλικό κανόνα είναι η λεγόμενη θεωρία των τριών σταδιών η οποία αναπτύχθηκε το 1871 από τον Γερμανό λόγιο Χάινριχ Γκρετζ και η οποία επεκτάθηκε και διαδόθηκε στα έργα των Φραντς Μπουλ, Γκέριτ Βίλντεμποερ και Έρμπερτ Ε. Ρίλε. Υποτίθεται ότι η Βίβλος κανονικοποιήθηκε σε τρεις φάσεις: πρώτα ο Νόμος (στα Εβραϊκά τορά, γνωστή επίσης ως τα πέντε βιβλία του Μωυσή, από τη Γένεση ως το Δευτερονόμιο), κατόπιν οι Προφήτες (στα Εβραϊκά νεβιίμ, αποτελούμενο από τους πρώιμους και τους ύστερους προφήτες· δηλαδή, τα ιστορικά βιβλία και τις προφητικές συλλογές), και τελικά τα Συγγράμματα (στα Εβραϊκά κετουβίμ). Η όλη διαδικασία διήρκησε 500 χρόνια και έφτασε στο τέλος της το 100 Κ.Χ. από μια ραβινική συγκέντρωση στην Ιάμνεια που είναι γνωστή στη γραμματεία ως η Σύνοδος της Ιάμνειας· εκεί οι ιουδαϊκές αρχές κατέληξαν σε συμφωνία αναφορικά με τα όρια του κανόνα.

Σήμερα αυτή η θεωρία της κανονικοποίησης δεν υποστηρίζεται πλέον από την κοινότητα των λογίων. Η θανάσιμη αδυναμία της είναι η υποτιθέμενη Σύνοδος της Ιάμνειας. Μια κριτική ανάγνωση των ραβινικών πηγών έχει οδηγήσει τους περισσότερους λόγιους στο συμπέρασμα ότι δεν υπήρξε ποτέ Σύνοδος της Ιάμνειας· αποτελεί ιστορική χίμαιρα μιας αμφισβητήσιμης χριστιανικής έμπνευσης. Επειδή η Σύνοδος της Ιάμνειας δεν είναι ιστορική λεπτομέρεια αλλά ο ακρογωνιαίος λίθος της θεωρίας, η απόρριψή της οδηγεί στον αποκλεισμό της θεωρίας στο σύνολό της. Η ιστορία της κανονικοποιήσης της Εβραϊκής Βίβλου πρέπει να ξαναγραφτεί από την αρχή. Οι περισσότεροι βιβλικοί λόγιοι είναι καλά ενήμεροι αυτής της πρόκλησης, αλλά δύσκολα μπορούν να συμφωνήσουν στον τρόπο αντιμετώπισής της».]

* Karel van der Toorn,
Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible
[Η Κουλτούρα των Γραφέων και η Δημιουργία της Εβραϊκής Βίβλου],
Harvard University Press, 2009, pp./σσ. 234, 235.

Μέσα 4ου αιώνα: Τι διαβαζόταν ως κανονικές Γραφές στη Φρυγία της Μικράς Ασίας / Mid-4th century: What was read as authorised Scriptures at Phrygia, Asia Minor

Old illustration of a Phrygian tomb excavated in the rock,
near Harmancik, Marmara region, Turkey.
Created by Gaiaud, published on Le Tour du Monde, Paris, 1864

Κανὼν νθ' (59): Ἰδιωτικοὶ ψαλμοὶ οὐ λέγονται ἐπ' ἐκκλησίας, ἀλλὰ μόνον τὰ κανονικά.

Ὅτι οὐ δεῖ ἰδιωτικοὺς ψαλμοὺς λέγεσθαι ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ, οὐδὲ ἀκανόνιστα βιβλία, ἀλλὰ μόνα τὰ κανονικὰ τῆς Παλαιᾶς καὶ Καινῆς Διαθήκης.

Κανὼν ξ’ (60): Ὅσα δεῖ τῶν τῆς Γραφῆς ἀναγινώσκεσθαι βιβλία.

Ὅσα δεῖ βιβλία ἀναγινώσκεσθαι τῆς Παλαιᾶς Διαθήκης· α΄ Γένεσις κόσμου· β΄ Ἔξοδος ἐξ Αἰγύπτου· γ΄ Λευϊτικόν· δ΄ Ἀριθμοί· ε΄ Δευτερονόμιον· στ΄ ᾽Ιησοῦς τοῦ Ναυῆ· ζ΄ Κριταί, Ρούθ· η΄ Ἐσθήρ· θ΄ Βασιλειῶν πρώτη καὶ δευτέρα· ι΄ Βασιλειῶν τρίτη καὶ τετάρτη· ια΄ Παραλειπομένων πρῶτον καὶ δεύτερον· ιβ΄ Ἔσδρας πρῶτον καὶ δεύτερον· ιγ΄ Βίβλος Ψαλμῶν ρν ΄ ιδ΄ Παροιμίαι Σολομῶντος· ιε΄ Ἐκκλησιαστής· ιστ΄ Ἆσμα ἀσμάτων· ιζ΄ Ἰώβ· ιη΄ Δωδεκαπρόφητον· ιθ΄ Ἡσαΐας, Ἱερεμίας καὶ Βαρούχ, Θρῆνοι καὶ Ἐπιστολαί· κα' Ἰεζεκιήλ· κβ' Δανιήλ. Τὰ δὲ τῆς Καινῆς Διαθήκης ταῦτα· Εὐαγγέλια τέσσερα, κατὰ Ματθαῖον, κατὰ Μᾶρκον, κατὰ Λουκᾶν, κατὰ Ἰωάννην· Πράξεις, Ἀποστόλων· Ἐπιστολαὶ καθολικαὶ ἑπτά, Ἰακώβου μία, Πέτρου δύο, Ἰωάννου τρεῖς, Ἰούδα μία· Ἐπιστολαὶ Παύλου δεκατέσσαρες· πρὸς Ρωμαίους μία, πρὸς Κορινθίους δύο, πρὸς Γαλάτας μία, πρὸς Ἐφεσίους μία, πρὸς Φιλιππησίους μία, πρὸς Κολοσσαεῖς μία, πρὸς Θεσσαλονικεῖς δύο, πρὸς Ἑβραίους μία, πρὸς Τιμόθεον δύο, πρὸς Τίτον μία, καὶ πρὸς Φιλήμονα μία.

* Τοπική σύνοδος Λαοδικείας
(Λαοδικεία Φρυγίας στη Μικρά Ασία, 343-381 Κ.Χ., εξέδωσε 60 κανόνες)

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.

Canon 60

These are all the books of Old Testament appointed to be read: 1, Genesis of the world; 2, The Exodus from Egypt; 3, Leviticus; 4, Numbers; 5, Deuteronomy; 6, Joshua, the son of Nun; 7, Judges, Ruth; 8, Esther; 9, Of the Kings, First and Second; 10, Of the Kings, Third and Fourth; 11, Chronicles, First and Second; 12, Esdras, First and Second; 13, The Book of Psalms; 14, The Proverbs of Solomon; 15, Ecclesiastes; 16, The Song of Songs; 17, Job; 18, The Twelve Prophets; 19, Isaiah; 20, Jeremiah, and Baruch, the Lamentations, and the Epistle; 21, Ezekiel; 22, Daniel. And these are the books of the New Testament: Four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; The Acts of the Apostles; Seven Catholic Epistles, to wit, one of James, two of Peter, three of John, one of Jude; Fourteen Epistles of Paul, one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Galatians, one to the Ephesians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Hebrews, two to Timothy, one to Titus, and one to Philemon.

* Local synod of Laodicea
(Laodicea of Phrygia at Asia Minor, 343-381 C.E., regulated 60 canons)

Η Εκκλησία & ο Βιβλικός κανόνας / The Church & the Biblical canon

«During the second and succeeding centuries, this authoritative word was found, not in the utterances of contemporary leaders and teachers, but in the apostolic testimony contained within certain early Christian writings. From this point of view the Church did not create the canon, but came to recognize, accept, affirm, and confirm the self-authenticating quality of certain documents that imposed themselves as such upon the Church. If this fact is obscured, one comes into serious conflict not with dogma but with history.»

[«Κατά τη διάρκεια του δεύτερου και των ακόλουθων αιώνων, αυτός ο έγκυρος λόγος βρισκόταν, όχι στα λόγια των σύγχρονων ηγετών και δασκάλων, αλλά στην αποστολική μαρτυρία που περιεχόταν σε ορισμένα πρώιμα χριστιανικά συγγράμματα. Από αυτή την άποψη η Εκκλησία δεν δημιούργησε τον κανόνα, αλλά κατέληξε στο να αναγνωρίσει, να αποδεχτεί, να βεβαιώσει και να επιβεβαιώσει την αυταπόδεικτη ποιότητα ορισμένων κειμένων τα οποία επιβλήθηκαν αφ' εαυτού τους ως τέτοια στην Εκκλησία. Αν συσκοτισθεί  αυτό το γεγονός, η κατάληξη είναι σύγκρουση όχι με το δόγμα αλλά με την ιστορία».]

* Bruce Manning Metzger,
The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance
[Ο Κανόνας της Καινής Διαθήκης: Η Προέλευση, η Ανάπτυξη και η Σημασία του],
Oxford University Press, 1997, σ. 287.

Πόσα βιβλία έχει η Παλαιά Διαθήκη της Ανατολικής Ορθόδοξης Εκκλησίας; / How many are the books of the Old Testament of the Eastern Orthodox Church?

«Q. How many are the books of the Old Testament?
A. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Athanasius the Great, and St. John Damascene reckon them at twenty-two, agreeing therein with the Jews, who so reckon them in the original Hebrew tongue. Athanas. Ep. xxxix. De Test., J. Damasc. Theol. 1. iv. c. 17.
Q. Why should we attend to the reckoning of the Hebrews?
A. Because, as the Apostle Paul says, unto them were committed the oracles of God: and the sacred books of the Old Testament have been received from the Hebrew Church of that Testament by the Christian Church of the New. Rom. iii. 2.
Q. How do St. Cyril and St. Athanasius enumerate the books of the Old Testament?
A. As follows: 1, The book of Genesis: 2, Exodus: 3, Leviticus: 4, The book of Numbers: 5, Deuteronomy: 6, The book of Jesus the son of Nun: 7, The book of Judges, and with it, as an appendix, The book of Ruth: 8, The first and second books of Kings, as two parts of one book: 9, The third and fourth books of Kings: 10, The first and second books of Paralipomena: 11, The first book of Esdras, and the second, or, as it is entitled in Greek, the book of Nehemiah: 12, The book of Esther: 13, The book of Job: 14, The Psalms: 15, The Proverbs of Solomon: 16, Ecclesiastes, also by Solomon: 17, The Song of Songs, also by Solomon: 18, The book of the Prophet Isaiah: 19, Of Jeremiah: 20, Of Ezekiel: 21, Of Daniel: 22, Of the Twelve Prophets.
Q. Why is there no notice taken in this enumeration of the books of the Old Testament of the book of the Wisdom of the son of Sirach, and of certain others?
A. Because they do not exist in the Hebrew.
Q. How are we to regard these last-named books?
A. Athanasius the Great says, that they have been appointed of the Fathers to be read by proselytes, who are preparing for admission into the Church».

[«Ε. Πόσα είναι τα βιβλία της Παλαιάς Διαθήκης;

Α. Ο Αγ. Κύριλλος Ιεροσολύμων, ο Αγ. Αθανάσιος ο Μέγας, και ο Αγ. Ιωάννης ο Δαμασκηνός απαριθμούν εικοσιδύο, συμφωνώντας με τους Ιουδαίους, οι οποίοι τόσα τα απαριθμούν στην πρωτότυπη Εβραϊκή γλώσσα. Αθανάσ. Ep. xxxix. De Test., Ι. Δαμασκ. Θεολ. 1. iv. c. 17.
Ε. Γιατί πρέπει να ακολουθούμε την απαρίθμηση των Εβραίων;
Α. Διότι, όπως λέει ο Απόστολος Παύλος, σε αυτούς ήταν εμπιστευμένες οι εξαγγελίες του Θεού: και τα ιερά βιβλία της Παλαιάς Διαθήκης παραλήφθηκαν από την Εβραϊκή Εκκλησία [και] αυτής της Διαθήκης από την Χριστιανική Εκκλησία της Καινής. Ρωμ. iii. 2.
Ε. Πώς απαριθμούν ο Αγ. Κύριλλος και ο Αγ. Αθανάσιος τα βιβλία της Παλαιάς Διαθήκης;
Α. Ως ακολούθως: 1, Το βιβλίο της Γένεσης: 2, Έξοδος: 3, Λευιτικόν: 4, Το βιβλίο των Αριθμών: 5, Δευτερονόμιον: 6, Το βιβλίο του Ιησού του γιου του Ναυή: 7, Το βιβλίο των Κριτών, και μαζί του, σαν παράρτημα, Το βιβλίο της Ρουθ: 8, Το πρώτο και δεύτερο βιβλίο των Βασιλέων, ως δύο μέρη  του ίδιου βιβλίου: 9, Το τρίτο και τέταρτο βιβλίο των  Βασιλέων: 10, Το πρώτο και το δεύτερο βιβλίο των Παραλειπομένων: 11, Το πρώτο βιβλίο του Έσδρα, και το δεύτερο, ή, όπως τιτλοφορείται στα Ελληνικά, το βιβλίο του Νεεμία: 12, Το βιβλίο της Εσθήρ: 13, Το βιβλίο του Ιώβ: 14, Οι Ψαλμοί: 15, Οι Παροιμίες του Σολομώντα: 16, Εκκλησιαστής, επίσης του Σολομώντα: 17, Το Άσμα Ασμάτων, επίσης του Σολομώντα: 18, Το βιβλίο του Προφήτη Ησαΐα: 19, Του Ιερεμία: 20, Του Ιεζεκιήλ: 21, Του Δανιήλ: 22, Των Δώδεκα Προφητών.
Ε. Γιατί δεν γίνεται καμία αναφορά σε αυτή την απαρίθμηση των βιβλίων της Παλαιάς Διαθήκης στο βιβλίο της Σοφίας του γιου του Σειράχ, και σε μερικά άλλα;
Α. Επειδή δεν υφίστανται στα Εβραϊκά.
Ε. Πως πρέπει να θεωρούμε αυτά τα βιβλία;
Α. Ο Αθανάσιος ο Μέγας λέει, ότι έχουν καθοριστεί από τους Πατέρες να διαβάζονται από τους προσήλυτους, οι οποίοι ετοιμάζονται για την εισδοχή στην Εκκλησία».]

* The Longer Catechism of the Orthodox, Catholic Eastern Church, examined and approved by the most Holy Governing Synod,
[Η Μεγάλη Κατήχηση της Ορθόδοξης, Καθολικής, Ανατολικής Εκκλησίας, εξετασθείσα και εκριθείσα από την Αγιοτάτη Κυβερνώσα Σύνοδο]
1839, Moscow/Μόσχα, Synodal Press, pp./σσ. 38, 39.

[English/Αγγλικά, PDF]