§ 21. Holy Scripture and Tradition

Holy Scripture is made up of certain books which, according to the teaching of the Church, were written by inspiration of God. They are divided into the books of the Old Testament and the books of the New Testament. The books of the Old Testament are these: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Esther, First and Second Kingdoms [1–2 Samuel], Third and Fourth Kingdoms [1–2 Kings], First and Second Paralipomenon [Chronicles], First and Second Ezra, the Book of Psalms, the Proverbs of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Job, the Twelve Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Lamentations and the Epistle [of Jeremiah], Ezekiel, Daniel. The books of the New Testament are these: the four Gospels—according to Matthew, according to Mark, according to Luke, according to John; the Acts of the Apostles; the seven Catholic Epistles—one of James, two of Peter, three of John, one of Jude; the fourteen Epistles of Paul—to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, to the Hebrews, two to Timothy, to Titus, and to Philemon; and the Apocalypse.[1]

These books are called canonical (κανονιζόμενα βιβλία), and the Church acknowledged them as such in the fourth century,[2] distinguishing them from the non-canonical (οὐ κανονιζόμενα)[3] and the apocryphal (ἀπόκρυφα).[4]

All these books of Holy Scripture were written in two languages: those of the Old Testament in Hebrew, those of the New Testament in Greek, and from these languages they were translated into the other languages. Which text or translation is exact is a question for isagogics to answer; for church law it is enough that the given edition of the Bible be approved by synodal authority, and it is from such an edition that church law is then free to draw what it needs. Editions that are not synodally approved have no authority,[5] since the Church alone is called to be the guardian of revealed truth, and no one else, and because only she can preserve Holy Scripture from every violation.[6] And that Holy Scripture must be understood solely and exclusively as the Church teaches it, and in no other way, we have seen from the 19th canon of the Council in Trullo, the 91st canon of Basil the Great, and from the decree of the Council of Jerusalem of the year 1672.[7]

Tradition is contained in the ancient symbols of faith, in the collection of the Apostolic Canons, in the decisions of the councils of the early ages of the Church, in the acts of the martyrs, and, in general, in the writings of all the ancient Fathers and teachers of the Church. But in order that Tradition may have full authority in the Church and be reliable, it must bear upon itself the marks established by theological science, by which it may be distinguished from false tradition, and only then can church law also appeal to it and draw from it what it needs for its own system.[8]

In general, Holy Scripture and Tradition concern church law insofar as they make known the foundations of the constitution and governance of the Church, or the so-called jus divinum. And what constitutes this jus divinum, and what is held to be such in the Christian Church, is taught by the symbolic books, which set forth the teaching of the Church precisely and specifically. In the Orthodox Church there are two such books, namely: a) The Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Eastern Church,[9] and b) The Epistle of the Patriarchs of the Eastern Catholic Church Concerning the Orthodox Faith.[10] To these must further be added the Extended Christian Catechism of the Orthodox Catholic Eastern Church.[11]

Footnotes

[1] As far as law is concerned, these books pertain to it as a collection in which the source of the so-called juris divini is contained. Accordingly, isagogic questions have no place in law, but theological science is the one that must occupy itself with them. On the books of Holy Scripture in general Cf. Macarius, Introduction to Orthodox Theology. St. Petersburg ed. §§ 111—121. and the literature on that question cited there.—N. M. Δάμαλας, Ἑρμηνεία εἰς τὴν καινὴν διαθήκην. Ἐν Ἀθήναις, 1876 — Archim. Michael, Introduction to the New Testament Books of Holy Scripture (trans. from the German.) Moscow 1869.—And especially on the books of Holy Scripture in relation to church law see J. Donjat, Praenot. canonic. lib. I. cap. 6—28. (Ed. cit. pag. 21—97). — J. W. Bickell, Gesch. des Kirchenrechts. §§ 4—11 (Ed. cit. 11—22).

[2] See canon 60 of the Council of Laodicea (Ath. Synt. III, 225—226). Carthaginian canon 24 (Ib. III, 368—369). Athanasius the Great, from the Letter on the Festivals (Ib. IV, 78—79). Gregory the Theologian, on which books of the Old and New Testament ought to be read (Ib. IV, 363—364). Amphilochius of Iconium on the same (Ib. IV, 365—367). The canons mentioned and the views of these fathers on the canonical books of holy scripture later received the confirmation of the ecumenical church. See canon 2 of the Council in Trullo (Ib. II, 309).—Canon 85 of the Apostles mentions among the books of holy scripture some further Old Testament books that are not in the Hebrew canon, namely the three books of Maccabees and the book of Jesus the son of Sirach, and it places among the New Testament books: the two epistles of Clement and the eight books of the Constitutions, while omitting the Apocalypse of John the Theologian. With regard to this it should be noted in general that that canon does not speak exclusively of the canonical books of holy scripture, but of the books which Christians must venerate (βιβλία σεβάσμια); and both canonical and non-canonical books could be venerated, provided only that the latter were in accord with the spirit of the Gospel. As for the fact that the Apocalypse was omitted, that depended on the circumstance that at the time when the collection of apostolic canons was compiled this book was not yet known in all the churches, or at least not in the one in which this collection was issued. On the books of the Apostolic Constitutions the Council in Trullo pronounced its judgment in the 7th century (canon 2), depriving them of their authority in the church.—In canon 60 of the Council of Laodicea we do not find the Apocalypse among the New Testament books, and the same is true of the catalogue of Gregory the Theologian, in all likelihood for the very same reason for which it is not mentioned in canon 85 of the Apostles either. Cf., for the rest, on this, L. F. Spittler, Kritische Untersuchung des sechzigsten Laodicenischen Canons. Bremen, 1777.—(On the canonical books of the Old and New Testament which the Orthodox church recognizes today, see “The Lengthier Christian Catechism of the Orthodox Catholic Eastern Church, Examined and Approved by the Most Holy Governing Synod” St. Petersburg, 1848, pp. 8—12.—The Roman Catholic church recognizes the following books: “Testamenti veteris: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numeri, Deuteronomium, Josuae, Judicum, Ruth, quatuor Regum, duo Paralipomenon, Esdrae primus et secundus, Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, Psalterium Davidicum, Parabolae, Ecclesiastes, Canticum Canticorum, Sapientia, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias cum Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel, duodecim Prophetae minores, duo Machabaeorum, primus et secundus. Testamenti novi: quatuor Evangelia, secundum Mattheum, Marcum, Lucam, et Joannem; Actus Apostolorum a Luca evangelista conscripti; quatuordecim epistolae Pauli Apostoli, ad Romanos, duae ad Corinthios, ad Galatas, ad Ephesios, ad Philippenses, ad Colossenses, duae ad Thessalonicenses, duae ad Timotheum, ad Titum, ad Philemonem, ad Hebraeos; Petri Apostoli duae, Joannis Apostoli tres, Jacobi Apostoli una, Judae Apostoli una, et Apocalipsis Joannis Apostoli.” Ss. Concilii Tridentini sessio quarta, decretum de canonicis scripturis. Ed. Aem. L. Richter, Lipsiae, 1839 col. 4. All these books are contained in the Biblia sacra vulgatae editionis Sixti V. Pont. Max. jussu recognita atque edita. I have the edition Antverpiae, 1603, with which I compared the above-mentioned decree of the Council of Trent.—Protestants have in their Bible a smaller number of Old Testament books than the number of these books in the Roman Catholic church. Their New Testament books are the same in number as in the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic church, while of the Old Testament they have: the five books of Moses, Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the two books of Samuel, the two books of Kings, the two books of Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, the book of Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and the twelve minor prophets. The editions of the British and Foreign Bible Society have been prepared according to this catalogue, and among them also Daničić’s Serbian translation. Cf. Oehler, Kanon des Alt. Test., in Herzog’s Real Encyklopädie. Bd. VII. S. 243 sq.

[8] See above note 3. § 7. The criterion for knowing the true tradition of the church is expressed in a classical writing of a western father of the church, Vincent of Lérins († ca. 450), whom the Orthodox church follows to this day. The question had arisen, how the right truth might be discerned, and Vincent says that this can be, “primum divinae legis auctoritate, tum deinde ecclesiae catholicae traditione…. In ipsa item catholica ecclesia magnopere curandum est, ut id teneamus, quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est. Hoc est enim vere proprieque catholicum; quod ipsa vis nominis ratioque declarat, quae omnia fere universaliter comprehendit. Sed hoc ita demum fiet, si sequamur universitatem, antiquitatem, consensionem. Sequemur autem universitatem hoc modo, si hanc unam fidem veram esse fateamur, quam tota per orbem terrarum confitetur ecclesia. Antiquitatem vero ita, si ab his sensibus nullatenus recedamus, quos sanctos majores ac patres nostros celebrasse manifestum est. Consensionem quoque itidem si in ipsa vetustate omnium, vel certe pene omnium sacerdotum pariter et magistrorum definitiones sententiasque sectemur…. Itaque cum primum mali cujusque erroris putredo erumpere coeperit et ad defensionem sui quaedam sacrae legis verba furari, eaque fallaciter et fraudolenter exponere, statim interpretando canoni majorum sententiae congregandae sunt; quibus illud quodcunque exurget novitium, ideoque prophanum, et absque ulla ambage prodatur, et sine ulla retractatione damnetur. Sed eorum duntaxat patrum sententiae conferendae sunt, qui in fide et communione catholica sancte, sapienter, constanter viventes, docentes et permanentes, vel mori in Christo fideliter vel occidi pro Christo feliciter meruerunt. Quibus tamen hac lege credendum est, ut quicquid vel omnes vel plures uno eodemque sensu manifeste, frequenter, perseveranter, velut quodam consentiente sibi magistrorum concilio accipiendo, tenendo, trahendo firmaverint, id pro indubitato, certo, ratoque habeatur. Quicquid vero quamvis ille sanctus et doctus, quamvis episcopus, quamvis confessor et martyr, praeter omnes aut etiam contra omnes senserit id inter proprias et occultas et privatas opinionculas a communis et publicae generalis sententiae auctoritate secretum sit; ne cum summo aeternae salutis periculo, juxta sacrilegam haereticorum et schismaticorum consuetudinem, universalis dogmatis antiqua veritate demissa, unius hominis novitium sectemur errorem.” Vincentii Lirinensis Commonitorium adversus haereses cap. 1. 3. 33.

§ 21. Holy Scripture and Tradition

§ 21. Свето писмо и предање