The Oxford Handbook of the Bible in Orthodox Christianity (OXFORD HANDBOOKS SERIES) 9780190948658, 9780190948672, 0190948655

Table of contents :
Cover
The Oxford Handbook of the Bible in Orthodox Christianity
Copyright
Contents
Foreword by Elpidophoros, Archbishop of America
Acknowledgments
List of Contributors
Introduction: The Bible in Orthodox Christianity: Balancing Tradition with Modernity
Part I. Text
1. The Place of the Hebrew Old Testament Text in the Eastern Church
2. The Old Greek, Hebrew, and Other Text Witnesses in Eastern Orthodoxy
3. From Suspicion to Appreciation: The Change of Perception Regarding Theodotion’s Version of Daniel in Patristic Literature
4. Syriac Versions of the Bible
5. The Coptic Bible
6. Translation of the Bible into Armenian
7. Byzantine Lectionary Manuscripts and Their Significance for Biblical Textual Criticism
8. Past and Current Trends in New Testament Textual Criticism
Part II. Canon
9. The Emergence of Biblical Canons in Orthodox Christianity
10. “Splendid Brilliancy”: Orthodox Perspectives on Biblical Inspiration
11. The Special Status of the Anagignoskomena in Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy
12. Liturgical Use and Biblical Canonicity
13. The Biblical Canon of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tawāhǝdo Church (EOTC)
Part III. Scripture within Tradition
14. Tradition: Generated by or Generating Scripture?
15. The Use of the Bible in Byzantine Liturgical Texts and Services
16. Reading Scripture with the Church Fathers
17. Theology, Philosophy, and Confessionalization: Eastern Orthodox Biblical Interpretation after the Fall of Constantinople
18. The New Testament in the Orthodox Church: Liturgical and Pedagogical Aspects
Part IV. Toward an Orthodox Hermeneutics
19. Toward an Orthodox Hermeneutic
20. Orthodox Christianity, Patristic Exegesis, and Historical Criticism of the Bible
21. The Modern Search for the Literal Sense: Forerunners of the Challenge at Antioch
22. Antiochene Theoria and the Theological Interpretation of Scripture
23. Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy: A Brief Survey
24. Biblical Exegesis in the Syriac Churches
25. Biblical Interpretation in Ethiopian Patristic Literature
26. The Bible and the Armenian Church
27. Scriptural Interpretation in the Late Antique Coptic Tradition
28. Pastoral Use of the Bible in the Orthodox Church
29. Eastern Orthodox Views on Ancient Jewish Biblical Interpretation
30. Anti-​Jewish Sentiments in Liturgical and Patristic Biblical Interpretations
31. Bible and Archaeology: An Orthodox Perspective
Part V. Looking to the Future
32. Reading from the End, Looking Forward
33. Who’s Afraid of the Old Testament? Tough Texts for Rough Times
34. The Bible in Orthodox Christian–​Jewish Dialogue
35. Bible, Theology, and Science: Learning from the Past and Looking to the Future
36. Theology–​Science Dialogue: An Orthodox Perspective
37. How Orthodox Women Read and Teach the Bible
38. B.E.S.T.: Bridging Synchronic and Diachronic Modes of Interpretation
39. Reception History: A Paradigmatic Turn in Contemporary Biblical Scholarship
40. Modern Orthodox Biblical Interpretation
41. Toward an Integrative Reading of the Bible
Index

Citation preview

the Oxford Handbook of

THE BIBLE IN ORTHODOX CHRISTIANITY

THE Oxford Handbook of

THE BIBLE IN ORTHODOX CHRISTIANITY Edited by

E U G E N J. P E N T I U C

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and certain other countries. Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America. © Oxford University Press 2022 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above. You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Pentiuc, Eugen J., 1955- editor. Title: The Oxford handbook of the Bible in Orthodox Christianity / [edited by Eugen J. Pentiuc]. Description: New York, NY : Oxford University Press, [2022] | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2021057622 (print) | LCCN 2021057623 (ebook) | ISBN 9780190948658 (hardback) | ISBN 9780190948672 (epub) Subjects: LCSH: Bible—Criticism, interpretation, etc. | Orthodox Eastern Church—Doctrines. Classification: LCC BS511.3 .O95 2022 (print) | LCC BS511.3 (ebook) | DDC 220.6—dc23/eng/20220210 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021057622 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021057623 DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190948658.001.0001 1 3 5 7 9 8 6 4 2 Printed by Marquis, Canada

Contents

Foreword by Elpidophoros, Archbishop of America  Acknowledgments  List of Contributors 

Introduction: The Bible in Orthodox Christianity: Balancing Tradition with Modernity  Eugen J. Pentiuc

ix xi xiii 1

PA RT I .   T E X T 1. The Place of the Hebrew Old Testament Text in the Eastern Church  Miltiadis Konstantinou

23

2. The Old Greek, Hebrew, and Other Text Witnesses in Eastern Orthodoxy  Alexandru Mihăilă

36

3. From Suspicion to Appreciation: The Change of Perception Regarding Theodotion’s Version of Daniel in Patristic Literature  Daniel Olariu

52

4. Syriac Versions of the Bible  George A. Kiraz

69

5. The Coptic Bible  Hany N. Takla

81

6. Translation of the Bible into Armenian  Garegin Hambardzumyan

96

7. Byzantine Lectionary Manuscripts and Their Significance for Biblical Textual Criticism  Gregory S. Paulson

112

vi   Contents

8. Past and Current Trends in New Testament Textual Criticism  Simon Crisp

133

PA RT I I .   C A N ON 9. The Emergence of Biblical Canons in Orthodox Christianity  Lee Martin McDonald

149

10. “Splendid Brilliancy”: Orthodox Perspectives on Biblical Inspiration  Edith M. Humphrey

164

11. The Special Status of the Anagignoskomena in Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy  Ioan Chirilă

179

12. Liturgical Use and Biblical Canonicity  Petros Vassiliadis 13. The Biblical Canon of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tawāhǝdo Church (EOTC)  Daniel Assefa

197

211

PA RT I I I .   S C R I P T U R E W I T H I N T R A DI T ION 14. Tradition: Generated by or Generating Scripture?  Silviu N. Bunta

229

15. The Use of the Bible in Byzantine Liturgical Texts and Services  Stefanos Alexopoulos

243

16. Reading Scripture with the Church Fathers  Alexis Torrance

261

17. Theology, Philosophy, and Confessionalization: Eastern Orthodox Biblical Interpretation after the Fall of Constantinople up to the Late Seventeenth Century  Athanasios Despotis

275

18. The New Testament in the Orthodox Church: Liturgical and Pedagogical Aspects  Konstantin Nikolakopoulos

288

Contents   vii

PA RT I V.   TOWA R D A N ORT HOD OX H E R M E N E U T IC S 19. Toward an Orthodox Hermeneutic  Theodore G. Stylianopoulos

303

20. Orthodox Christianity, Patristic Exegesis, and Historical Criticism of the Bible  John Fotopoulos

322

21. The Modern Search for the Literal Sense: Forerunners of the Challenge at Antioch  Christopher R. Seitz

334

22. Antiochene Theoria and the Theological Interpretation of Scripture  Bradley Nassif

347

23. Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy: A Brief Survey  Anthony G. Roeber

363

24. Biblical Exegesis in the Syriac Churches  Sebastian P. Brock

378

25. Biblical Interpretation in Ethiopian Patristic Literature  Mersha Alehegne

396

26. The Bible and the Armenian Church  Vahan Hovhanessian

411

27. Scriptural Interpretation in the Late Antique Coptic Tradition  Mary K. Farag

427

28. Pastoral Use of the Bible in the Orthodox Church  Harry Pappas

445

29. Eastern Orthodox Views on Ancient Jewish Biblical Interpretation  Bruce N. Beck

463

30. Anti-​Jewish Sentiments in Liturgical and Patristic Biblical Interpretations  Bogdan G. Bucur

484

viii   Contents

31. Bible and Archaeology: An Orthodox Perspective  Nicolae Roddy

501

PA RT V.   L O OK I N G TO T H E F U T U R E 32. Reading from the End, Looking Forward  John Behr 33. Who’s Afraid of the Old Testament? Tough Texts for Rough Times  Brent A. Strawn 34. The Bible in Orthodox Christian–​Jewish Dialogue  Michael G. Azar 35. Bible, Theology, and Science: Learning from the Past and Looking to the Future  David A. Wilkinson

519

539 556

575

36. Theology–​Science Dialogue: An Orthodox Perspective  Nikolaos Chatzinikolaou

589

37. How Orthodox Women Read and Teach the Bible  Ashley M. Purpura

605

38. B.E.S.T.: Bridging Synchronic and Diachronic Modes of Interpretation  Olivier-​Thomas Venard

619

39. Reception History: A Paradigmatic Turn in Contemporary Biblical Scholarship  Justin A. Mihoc

635

40. Modern Orthodox Biblical Interpretation  James Buchanan Wallace

647

41. Toward an Integrative Reading of the Bible  R. W. L. (Walter) Moberly

668

Index

683

Foreword

At first glance, the Orthodox Church might not appear to place as much emphasis on the Bible relative to other Christian denominations, but, to the contrary, everything in the spirituality of the Eastern Church springs from Holy Scripture. The Church Fathers possessed an organic relationship with the sacred texts. They were very quickly translated into other languages as a means for Christian expansion and mission throughout the Roman Empire and beyond. The Bible is the wellspring of the liturgy. It is inseparable from the sacraments. It is the source of iconography. The Bible is the life of the Church at the intersection of communion and salvation. Therefore, I am delighted to commend Fr. Eugen J. Pentiuc’s present work: Oxford Handbook of the Bible in Orthodox Christianity. As editor of the present volume, he has almost four decades of pastoral experience in Romania, Israel, and the United States, and is a prolific theologian and biblical scholar. He is in a unique position to take on this significant project with the collaboration of many Orthodox and non-​Orthodox biblical scholars, in order to celebrate the fascinating development of the Bible in Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Christianity. Regarding the text of Scripture, Orthodoxy has never “canonized” a specific textual tradition (e.g., Old Greek—​Septuagint over Hebrew—​Masoretic Text). While always breathing through the Septuagint, the Orthodox Church has not closed the door on other textual traditions, Origen’s Hexapla being a monumental example of textual fluidity. Moreover, the Slavic, Arabic, and Romanian translations, as well as Oriental Orthodox translations (Syriac, Coptic, Ethiopian, Armenian), speak volumes about Orthodox Christianity’s flexibility with respect to the biblical text and its transmission. A brief survey of the canonical lists in Eastern and Oriental Orthodox traditions shows a wide variety of views. If the New Testament canon remains relatively well configured at twenty-​seven books, the Old Testament canon is quite elastic in its remote boundaries. While all thirty-​nine canonical books of the Hebrew Bible are to be found in any Bible of Byzantine and Oriental churches, the number of the ἀναγιγνωσκόμενα (“readable,” St. Athanasius’s coinage) differs from one community to another: forty-​nine Old Testament books in Byzantine Orthodoxy, and the broadest canon in the Ethiopian tradition. Another conundrum is the status of these ἀναγιγνωσκόμενα: Are they considered canonical as are the thirty-​nine or noncanonical (οὐ κανονιζόμενα, St. Athanasius)? Put differently, is it the ongoing liturgical use of these ἀναγιγνωσκόμενα that makes them canonical? All Orthodox traditions insist on the “centrality of Scripture within tradition.” While Scripture as God’s word vested in human words remains central, tradition, as the matrix and living context of the Church, is in a continuous symbiosis with Scripture. Note that tradition from an Orthodox perspective is more than a mere deposit of faith; it is the Church’s life under the guidance of the Holy Spirit approaching the eschaton.

x   Foreword Perhaps the main characteristic of Orthodox Christianity in terms of biblical hermeneutics is that there is no “Orthodox hermeneutics” in the sense of a well-​configured, restrictive, or closed system. Contributors in this section show the diversity of “Orthodox hermeneutics” diachronically from ancient to modern times and synchronically across the wide spectrum of Orthodoxy from Eastern (Byzantine) to Oriental traditions. Looking to the future, the biggest challenge for Orthodox in postmodern times is how to bridge time-​honored patristic hermeneutics with the modern historical-​critical method and postmodern literary approaches. Contributions in this section by Orthodox and non-​Orthodox biblical scholars are at the cutting edge of current biblical hermeneutical conversations. Are the diachronic (i.e., modern historical-​criticism) modes of interpretation ready or even able to “converse” with the synchronic (i.e., ancient patristic and postmodern canonical and literary approaches) modes of interpretation? Will they enter into an ever-​changing and reciprocal complementarity? It remains to be seen in the future. In closing, allow me to repeat that I see this handbook as a sign of and witness to Orthodox unity. Studying and teaching the Word of God as recorded in and conveyed to us throughout the centuries of the Church’s living tradition can be a great catalyst toward a complete unity in diversity of all the various branches of Orthodox Christianity. Important seeds are sown in this handbook; the harvest is yet to come. I am most pleased to endorse this volume that reflects the richness, fluidity, and dynamism of the Orthodox φρόνημα molded throughout the centuries by so many cultures and tongues. New York City, February 2021 +​ELPIDOPHOROS Archbishop of America

Acknowledgments

I begin by expressing my gratitude to His Eminence, Archbishop Elpidophoros of America for his support of my scholarly endeavors as well as for gracing this handbook with a foreword that is more valuable since it comes from a genuine promoter of pan-​Orthodoxy unity. I thank my home institution, Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology in Brookline, Massachusetts, for continuous support. My special thanks go to Archbishop Demetrios Chair of Biblical Studies and Christian Origins, and to the generous Jaharis Family Foundation for all their great support, especially during my recent full-​year sabbatical without which I could not have completed this edited handbook and my monograph Hearing the Scriptures: Liturgical Exegesis of the Old Testament in Byzantine Orthodox Hymnography (OUP, 2021). I chose for the cover of this handbook an illumination (St. Mark the Evangelist) from the Jaharis Gospel Lectionary (Constantinople, around the year 1100) as a token of my gratitude to the donor of the Archbishop Demetrios chair. I express my thanks to St. Joseph’s Roman Catholic Seminary in Yonkers, New York, for hospitality during my Professor-​in-​Residence stint (Fall 2020–​Spring 2021). I also acknowledge the assistance I have received from my dear friend Elias (Bogue) Stevens and the Malbis Memorial Foundation. I owe many thanks to my editor at Oxford University Press, Dr. Steve Wiggins, who invited me to be the editor of this handbook, for his professionalism, patience, and prompt responses to my numberless questions and queries. My family, my dearest wife, Flora, and our beloved children, Daniel and Cristina, deserve my deep gratitude for all their tacit yet undeniable support. Each and every contributor to this handbook is fully worthy of my warmest thanks—​ an international and ecumenical group of fine experts in Bible and cognate fields who answered my call and came together to share their own research and working conclusions pertaining to such an intriguing topic as the Bible in Orthodox Christianity. Thank you, my friends! Doxa tō Theō “Glory to God!” Eugen J. Pentiuc Boston, Massachusetts

January 1, 2022 Circumcision of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ

List of Contributors

Mersha Alehegne is Associate Professor of Ge’ez Philology, Department of Linguistics and Philology, Addis Ababa University. His research is mainly on Ethiopic texts and manuscripts. Currently, he is an Alexander-​von-​Humboldt Research Fellow. Stefanos Alexopoulos is Associate Professor of Liturgical Studies, The Catholic University of America. He researches the history and evolution of Byzantine liturgical structures and offices in the manuscript tradition, and how the official liturgy intersects with private piety. Daniel Assefa is Director of Tibeb Research and Retreat Center and author of L’Apocalypse des animaux (1 Hen 85–​90): Une propagande militaire (Brill, 2007) and Space and Time in 1 Enoch 1–​36. A Narrative Critical Analysis, 2018 (UNISA, Unpublished dissertation). Michael G. Azar is Associate Professor of Theology—​Religious Studies at the University of Scranton in Pennsylvania. He has previously published a variety of works related to the impact of the Bible in Eastern Christian–​Jewish interaction. Bruce N. Beck is Assistant Professor of New Testament at Hellenic College Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology, where he also serves as the Director of Enrollment Management. John Behr is the Regius Professor of Humanity, University of Aberdeen, and former Dean of St Vladimir’s Seminary, New York. His publications include an edition and translation of Origen’s On First Principles and a study of the Gospel of John. Sebastian P. Brock is Emeritus Reader in Syriac Studies, Oxford University. He has written extensively on Syriac culture and edited many new texts, including the Second Part of Isaac of Nineveh’s Discourses; his publications include the edition of Peshitta: Isaiah and The Luminous Eye: The Spiritual World Vision of St Ephrem. Bogdan G. Bucur, St Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary, is the author of Angelomorphic Pneumatology: Clement of Alexandria and Other Early Christian Witnesses (Brill, 2009), Scripture Re-​envisioned: Christophanic Exegesis and the Making of a Christian Bible (Brill, 2018), and several journal articles. Silviu N. Bunta, an Orthodox priest, is Associate Professor of Scripture at the University of Dayton in Ohio. He has lectured and published on ancient Jewish and Christian hermeneutics, asceticism, and mysticism. Nikolaos Chatzinikolaou, Metropolitan of Mesogaia and Lavreotiki, is an expert in astrophysics, biomedical engineering, and bioethics, founder of the Hellenic Center for Biomedical Ethics and the first Palliative Care Unit in Greece, chairman of the Bioethics Committee of the Church of Greece.

xiv   List of Contributors Ioan Chirilă is Professor at the Faculty of Orthodox Theology, Cluj-​Napoca (Romania), where he teaches Old Testament, biblical archeology, and Hebrew. He was President of Babes-​Bolyai University Senate and he published over twenty volumes and two hundred studies. Simon Crisp is affiliated to the Institute for Textual Scholarship and Electronic Editing (University of Birmingham, UK). He is the former Coordinator for Scholarly Editions with United Bible Societies. He has published widely in the areas of Bible translation, hermeneutics, and textual criticism. Athanasios Despotis is Extraordinary Professor at the University of Bonn. He is also a Research Associate at the University of Bern and the University of Pretoria. His most recent monograph is Bekehrungserfahrung und Bekehrungserinnerung bei Paulus und Johannes (Schöningh-​Brill 2021). Mary K. Farag, Assistant Professor of Early Christian Studies at Princeton Theological Seminary, is a historian specializing in the period of late antiquity. She is the author of What Makes a Church Sacred? Legal and Ritual Perspectives from Late Antiquity. John Fotopoulos is an associate professor in the Department of Religious Studies and Theology at Saint Mary’s College, Notre Dame, Indiana. He received his Ph.D. from Loyola University Chicago (2001) with a specialization in New Testament and early Christianity under the direction of David E. Aune. Garegin Hambardzumyan, Armenian priest, is the chair of the Mission Department of the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin, former Dean of the Gevorkian Theological Seminary, Etchmiadzin, and author of The Book of Sirach in the Armenian Biblical Tradition (De Gruyter, 2016). Vahan Hovhanessian is a bishop of the Armenian Orthodox Church and the Primate of the Diocese of France. His many publications in the area of biblical studies include Third Corinthians: Reclaiming Paul for Christian Orthodoxy (Peter Lang, 2000). Edith M. Humphrey is the William F. Orr New Testament Professor Emerita of Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, co-​chair for the International Orthodox Theological Association (biblical section), and author of ten books tackling exegetical, literary, and theological matters, including a forthcoming children’s novel. George A. Kiraz is a Senior Research Associate at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, and the director of Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute. He has written extensively on Syriac studies, computational linguistics, and the digital humanities. Miltiadis Konstantinou is Emeritus Old Testament Professor, former Chairman of the Department of Theology, and former Dean of the School of Theology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (Greece). His publications include The Old Testament: Deciphering the Common Heritage of Mankind (Alexander Press, 2010). Lee Martin McDonald is President Emeritus, Acadia Divinity College and Past Dean of Faculty of Theology at Acadia University, Professor of Biblical Studies, Past President of Institute for Biblical Research, and author or editor of thirty-​one books and one-​hundred-​ sixty-​five articles.

List of Contributors    xv Alexandru Mihăilă, University of Bucharest (Faculty of the Orthodox Theology), teaches Old Testament and Biblical Hebrew. He participated in the translation of Old Testament from Hebrew (3 volumes Genesis–​Deuteronomy, Humanitas Press-​Bucharest) and New Testament (Byzantine text; Vatopedi Monastery, forthcoming). Justin A. Mihoc teaches Patristics and Church History at Durham University and the College of the Resurrection (Mirfield), and is a Romanian Orthodox priest. He has published a number of articles and co-​edited A Celebration of Living Theology (Bloomsbury, 2014). R. W. L. (Walter) Moberly is Professor of Theology and Biblical Interpretation at Durham University. His most recent books are The Bible in a Disenchanted Age (2018) and The God of the Old Testament: Encountering the Divine in Christian Scripture (2020). Bradley Nassif is co-​editor of The Philokalia: A Classic Text of Orthodox Spirituality, foreword by Kallistos Ware; editor, New Perspectives on Historical Theology: Essays in Memory of John Meyendorff, foreword Henry Chadwick; and author of The Evangelical Theology of the Orthodox Church, foreword Andrew Louth. Konstantin Nikolakopoulos is Dean of Department of Orthodox Theology, Ludwig-​ Maximilian University, Munich (Germany), Professor of Orthodox Biblical Theology, member of Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas, and editor of the journal Orthodox Forum and the monograph series Lehr-​und Studienbücher Orthodoxe Theologie. Daniel Olariu has recently finished his Ph.D. at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Bible Department. He teaches Hebrew Scriptures at Adventus University, Cernica, Romania. He currently is preparing the commentary on Daniel for SBL Commentary on the Septuagint series (SBLCS). Harry Pappas is Pastor of Archangels Greek Orthodox Church (Stamford, CT) and adjunct Professor of Old Testament at Holy Cross School of Theology (Brookline, MA), with special interest in adult formation in faith, contemplative prayer, and transforming ministry in a changing world. Gregory Paulson is Research Associate at the Institute for New Testament Textual Research (INTF), University of Münster. His is a co-​editor of the Editio Critica Maior as well as the official list of Greek New Testament manuscripts, the Kurzgefaßte Liste. Eugen J. Pentiuc is the Archbishop Demetrios Professor of Biblical Studies and Christian Origins and Professor of Old Testament and Semitic Languages, Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology, and author of six monographs, including Hearing the Scriptures: Liturgical Exegesis of the Old Testament in Byzantine Orthodox Hymnography (OUP, 2021). Ashley M. Purpura is an Assistant Professor in the School of Interdisciplinary Studies at Purdue University. She publishes on gender and Orthodoxy, and is the author of God, Hierarchy, and Power: Orthodox Theologies of Authority from Byzantium (Fordham University Press, 2018). Nicolae Roddy is Professor of Old Testament at Creighton University and is affiliated with the University of Bucharest. For twenty years he co-​directed and supervised archaeological

xvi   List of Contributors excavations at Bethsaida, and has published extensively at the intersection of Bible and archaeology. Anthony G. Roeber is Professor of Church History, St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary. Co-​author, Changing Churches (2012); co-​editor, Oxford Handbook of Early Modern Theology (2016); author, Mixed Marriages: An Orthodox History (2018); and editor, Human v. Religious Rights? (2020). Christopher R. Seitz is Senior Research Professor of Biblical Interpretation, Wycliffe College in the University of Toronto; his most recent publication is Convergences: Canon and Catholicity (Baylor University Press, 2020); his collected essays, Prophecy and Canon, will appear shortly (Mohr Siebeck). Brent A. Strawn is Professor of Old Testament and Professor of Law at Duke University, Senior Fellow in the Center for the Study of Law and Religion at Emory University, and an ordained elder in the United Methodist Church. Theodore G. Stylianopoulos, a Greek Orthodox priest, taught the New Testament and Orthodox Spirituality at Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology during 1967–​ 2008. His most recent works are The Making of the New Testament (2014) and The Apostolic Gospel (2015). Hany N. Takla holds an MA in Coptic Studies from Macquarie University, Sydney Australia. Founding President of the St. Shenouda the Archimandrite Coptic Society and lecturer of Coptic Language and Coptology in Coptic theological schools in the United States and Europe. Alexis Torrance is the Archbishop Demetrios Associate Professor of Byzantine Theology at the University of Notre Dame, and a priest of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. He recently published Human Perfection in Byzantine Theology: Attaining the Fullness of Christ (OUP). Petros Vassiliadis is Emeritus Professor, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki; Director of Master Program of Orthodox Ecumenical Theology, International Hellenic University; Honorary President of CEMES and WOCATI, translator of New Testament into Modern Greek; and author of many books and articles. Olivier-​Thomas Venard is a Dominican priest and Professor of New Testament at the École Biblique et Archéologique Française in Jerusalem. His largest book in English is A Poetic Christ: Thomist Reflections on Scripture, Language and Reality (London: Bloomsbury, 2019). James Buchanan Wallace is Professor of Religion at Christian Brothers University. He is the author of Snatched into Paradise (2 Cor 12:1–​10): Paul’s Heavenly Journey in the Context of Early Christian Experience (De Gruyter, 2011). David A. Wilkinson is Principal of St John’s College and Professor in the Department of Theology of Religion in Durham University, United Kingdom. He is a Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society and an ordained Methodist minister.

Introduction

The Bible in Ort h od ox Christia ni t y Balancing Tradition with Modernity Eugen J. Pentiuc The lines that follow rely heavily on my own thoughts previously published or not, and now resuscitated, challenged, and enriched by the contributions to the present handbook. In the beginning was the Tradition And the Tradition was everything and everywhere

If there were to be an inspired word to describe Orthodox Christianity within a world of endless changes, that word would be “Tradition.” In the opening scene of the 1964 Broadway musical Fiddler on the Roof, the main character, Tevye, muses on how the folks of Anatevka village keep their balance in an imperial Russia: A fiddler on the roof. Sounds crazy, no? But in our little village of Anatevka, you might say every one of us is a fiddler on the roof, trying to scratch out a pleasant, simple tune without breaking his neck. It isn’t easy. You may ask, why do we stay up there if it’s so dangerous? We stay because Anatevka is our home. . . . And how do we keep our balance? That I can tell you in one word . . . Tradition. (Bock et al. 1964, 2)

As for Tevye, so for the Orthodox believer, everything is regulated by and wrapped up in Tradition: the way of praying, the way of hearing or reading the sacred Scriptures, the way of living, even the way of dressing or eating—​be it fasting or feasting, any and all of these are part of a mysterious, quite elusive, yet all-​encompassing Tradition. For this very reason, any discussion of the Bible in Orthodox Christianity, needs to be preceded by a preliminary survey of its sacred Tradition.

2   Eugen J. Pentiuc

Tradition: The Church’s Life-​Journey through History From the outset, I may admit that talking of Tradition is like the chicken-​egg dilemma: You cannot have one without the other; you cannot talk about tradition without Scripture, and the other way around. However, given the ubiquitousness of Tradition among the Orthodox, one needs to make a constructive effort to configure the structure and mechanics of this omnipresent Tradition. A caveat is well warranted at this point. For Orthodox, Tradition is not a storeroom or a deposit of faith, but rather sheer life—​the Church’s life, that is, in its diversity and complexity. Tradition is not a closed system, but the unfolding of life in its fluidity. That is why the great peril for Tradition is for it to be slowly codified—​with respect to Scripture, the process began with the codification by Justinian in the mid-​sixth century AD of various conciliar statements, and thus turning the life-​like process of Tradition into a mere deposit of faith (Pentiuc 2014, 144). How can one describe the content of Tradition or the Church’s life? As is the case with life, in general—​we know what it is or, rather, we are aware of it, but we cannot analyze it—​the same holds true for Tradition, we have a perception of it, but the moment we come closer to it, Tradition gains another avatar, eschewing any rigorous analysis. In quantum mechanics, the moment at which one “observes” or “measures” the light, the light changes its function, from wave to particle; again, the same holds true for Tradition. When one begins analyzing it, its ever-​changing, fluid, life-​like function turns into a composite picture consisting of pixels, lines, and sections. Nevertheless, for practical reasons, and due to the gradual codification process mentioned earlier, one may imagine the sacred Tradition as a wide circle, which can be divided, segmented, in a number of sections or slices. One may imagine Tradition as a wide circle, having at its center another circle, with a pivot inside of it that I would coin the “Christ-​ event” (i.e., Jesus’s irradiating and welcoming rich personality and ministry, comprising his sayings, wonders, the passion with the cross, death, and entombment, followed by an empty tomb and some postresurrection appearances, all culminating with his ascension to heaven). A summary of some of Jesus’s salvific activities may be found listed in one of the earliest recordings of the apostolic kerygma “proclamation,” namely, 1 Cor 15, functioning as one of the earliest lens through which the Christ-​event was seen and assessed by the emerging Church. Going outward from the central inner circle (following the Christ-​event), the first concentric circle is that of the New Testament writings, followed by another, wider circle—​that of the Old Testament Scriptures—​that is heading for the eschaton-​horizon, the ultimate frontier of these concentric circles. Tradition is a circle that intersects or overlaps with the two-​concentric circles along the pivot (i.e., Christ-​event). Thus pictured, Tradition is infused by Christ’s person and ministry, and Old and New Testament Scriptures. Here, there is a two-​way street. On the one hand, Christ and Scriptures inform and permeate the Tradition, and, on the other hand, the latter parses and conveys the former. One may wonder whether a biblical scholar belonging to a community of faith would be able to do biblical work fully independent from the presuppositions—​assumptions and guidelines—​ pertaining to their Tradition.

The Bible in Orthodox Christianity   3 In one of my earlier publications (Pentiuc 2006b), I suggested a new model to visualize the relation between Old and New Testaments. Instead of the classical Christian “vertical” paradigm with the Old Testament at the bottom (chronologically and hierarchically speaking) and the New Testament on the top superseding the elder scriptural collection, thus inviting supersessionism (mainly rhetorical, and sometimes even behavioral), I would rather propose a “horizontal” paradigm with two concentric circles: a narrow circle occupied by the New Testament with the pivotal Christ-​event at its center and a wider circle representing the Old Testament Scriptures. In this horizontal paradigm, the Christ-​event and the New Testament circle extends gradually heading toward a complete overlapping with the Old Testament circle, when at the eschaton-​horizon those Old Testament eschatological and a number of messianic prophecies will be utterly fulfilled. In this model, the New Testament, along with the Christ-​event recorded in it, holds the central spot, while the Old Testament continues to play an important role in the Church’s life (Tradition) heading toward the eschaton-​horizon; the two testaments are on par as “two sisters and two maidens serving one Master” (Chrysostom). This “horizontal” paradigm has the merit of underlining the Hebrew Bible’s (Old Testament) ongoing relevance for Jews, being their own Scripture, and for Christians, as containing most of the messianic prophecies referring to Christ’s first parousia and a great deal of prophetic material to be revealed and fulfilled at the eschaton, not to mention the plethora of theological, existential, and practical scores yet to be identified, rediscovered, or further investigated.

Content of Tradition This circle of Tradition may be imagined divided into a number of slices (sections), fanning out from the center (Christ-​event) to the eschaton-​horizon. Here are listed just a few of the sections that make up the sacred Tradition, in no particular order: liturgical life both aural (hymns, homilies, lectionaries) and visual (iconography, symbolic acts), patristic writings (biblical commentaries, theological treatises), conciliar documents, desert fathers’ sayings (Apophthegmata Patrum), canon law, etc. Interestingly, all the slices constituting the sacred Tradition emerge from a single point, the pivot, at the center of the two concentric circles, namely, the very Christ-​event. In other words, the Church’s life or Tradition springs from a variety of manifestations and forms from within the very heart of Christianity, that is, the person of Jesus the Messiah and his salvific ministry. This main characteristic of Tradition being centered on the Christ-​event has had a major impact on biblical hermeneutics of Orthodox Christianity throughout its long history. Orthodox biblical hermeneutics has a deep traditional character while being centered on the Christ-​event (hence its Christological content), as prophesied in the Old Testament and fulfilled in the New (see the section “Toward an Orthodox Hermeneutics”).

The Centrality of Scripture within Tradition Is Scripture generated by tradition or does it generate Tradition? (Bunta, in this volume). Here one needs to distinguish between the two meanings of the term “tradition.” Tradition,

4   Eugen J. Pentiuc often capitalized, is understood as the Church’s life under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and tradition(s), transmitted orally, that preceded the act of writing, hence generating Scripture. Under the latter understanding, one may place ancient Israel’s traditions found in the writings of the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) and the apostolic Church traditions lying at the core of New Testament writings, primarily the canonical gospels. For a useful expression of the Scripture–​Tradition relationship, one may use the following analogy: Scripture, most especially the Old Testament, may be compared to a daring and untamable textbook. Holy Tradition in all its avatars—​conciliar statements, writings of church fathers, liturgy, iconography, ascetic teachings—​functions as a guiding handout of the textbook. Following this analogy, one may note a certain complementarity or reciprocity. Handouts aim to summarize and explain the salient points of a textbook. Similarly, Tradition, based on Scripture, complements the latter by condensing and illuminating its content. Nevertheless, the handouts, however complete and clear they may appear, will never be able to exhaustively elucidate all the angles of scriptural trove or provide an all-​encompassing and self-​sufficient summary of Holy Writ. The handouts necessarily depend on a textbook, and they are always in state of revision and improvement. If the latter to a certain degree can stand by itself, the handouts always need the textbook as their irreducible point of departure and reference. (Pentiuc 2014, 165)

One may add here Gregory of Nyssa’s exhortation, “Let the inspired Scripture be our arbiter (diaitēsatō), and the sentence (psēphos) of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the divine words” (On the Holy Trinity, and of the Godhead of the Holy Spirit: To Eustathius), which speaks volumes of the pervasive Orthodox view on Scripture’s centrality within Tradition. This is one of the tenets and guiding principles of Orthodox Christianity as a whole. Orthodox do not speak of a twofold deposit, “Scripture and Tradition” as “two sources” of divine revelation (Roman Catholic view), neither do they discard the Tradition for a “self-​ sufficient” Scripture (i.e., sola Scriptura—​Protestant view). While holding both Scripture and Tradition in high esteem, the Orthodox have always granted Scripture a central place, viewing in it a lively pulsating heart shooting blood and nutrients throughout the entire Church’s body. Scripture is central to the Church’s life or Tradition. It spreads throughout all the sections of Tradition. Scripture is within Tradition, here, there, and everywhere, yet still remaining at the center of Tradition as a beacon of light and criterion of truth. Stylianopoulos (2009, 25) underscores the primacy or centrality of Scripture with respect to Tradition and Church by sharply stating: The Church does not possess the Bible in such a way that it can do whatever it pleases with it, for example through virtual neglect or excessive allegorisation. . . . In its canonical status, scripture occupies the primacy among the Church’s traditions. . . . The Bible as the supreme record of revelation is the indisputable norm of the Church’s faith and practice. . . . The neglect of the Bible and the silencing of its prophetic witness are inimical to the Church’s evangelical vibrancy and sense of mission in the world. . . . The Church in every generation is called to maintain the primacy and centrality of the Bible in its life, always attentive, repentant and obedient to God’s word.

How has this living Tradition been transmitted throughout history? Who are the “tradents” of the Tradition? For Orthodox, the Church as a whole (i.e., laity and

The Bible in Orthodox Christianity   5 hierarchy)—​the consensus ecclesiae—​plays this role; hence, the interpretation of Scripture in Orthodox Christianity lies with the Church as a whole; it is not restricted to a select group of people (magisterium—​the teaching office of the pope and bishops, Roman Catholic view), neither is it left alone to everyone with no guidance or continuity at all (Protestant view). Parenthetically, after II Vatican Council, the Roman Catholic Church came closer to the Orthodox view, insisting that the “people of God”—​the whole church, are the true tradents of Tradition. In Orthodoxy the consensus ecclesiae is viewed diachronically (apostolic succession of bishops [McGuckin 2008, 100]) and synchronically (the work of the Holy Spirit renewed through Eucharistic epiclesis [Zizioulas 1985, 123–​142, 171–​208]). For Orthodox, Tradition, namely, the Church’s life under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, is the ideal hermeneutical environment for an integrative reading of Scripture. As Florovsky (1972, 79–​80) insightfully remarks: Tradition was in the Early Church, first of all, an hermeneutical principle and method. Scripture could be rightly and fully assessed and understood only in the light and in the context of the living Apostolic Tradition, which was an integral factor of Christian existence. . . . It was not a fixed core or complex of binding propositions, but rather an insight into the meaning and impact of the revelatory events, of the revelation of the “God who acts.”

Textual Fluidity and Pluriformity Since the autographs or the authors’ original manuscripts have been lost, what once were called “versions” are now more accurately termed “textual witnesses” to the Scripture, the Old and New Testaments. As the name intimates, the “textual witnesses” are witnessing to a Scripture whose autographs are no longer extant, hence they all need to be treated equally just as they are—​mere witnesses. Only through quite laborious historical-​critical work are they to be evaluated and properly used, if not for the reconstruction of the original text, as traditionally believed, at least for a better understanding of the emergence of biblical texts and their transmission. Orthodox Christianity exhibits a great deal of textual fluidity and pluriformity with respect to the Scripture. As proof, the Orthodox Church has never “canonized” or “codified” a certain textual witness as its official text, as has been the case with Jerome’s translation, the Vulgate (AD 390–​405), which at the Council of Trent, on April 8, 1546, was recognized as the authoritative version of the Roman Catholic Church “in matters of faith and morals.” One may notice that even such a clear-​cut conciliar statement did not reject the importance of other textual witnesses (e.g., Hebrew text, Septuagint, etc.).

The Septuagint Although not an officially “canonized” Bible, the Septuagint became the default Bible in the East, being held in high esteem by Orthodox Christians. For the Orthodox Church, the Septuagint has, above all, a preeminent religious value. It has been the Bible of the Church covering all its major phases beginning with the New Testament and apostolic period through

6   Eugen J. Pentiuc the church fathers, ecumenical councils, and up to the present day. Notably, the Septuagint was the Bible of the first millennium undivided Church. The dogmatic statements of the ecumenical councils were crafted with the help of the Septuagint biblical lexicon. Moreover, the Septuagint was the Bible of the liturgists. Byzantine hymnographers are known for their artistic skills in interlacing the hymns with biblical phrases or keywords all gleaned from the Old Greek Bible (Septuagint). According to Jerome (Letter 57), the value of the Septuagint is due either to the fact that it was the first of the Bible versions made before Christ or that it was used by the apostles. Expanding on the former reason, one may add that in the view of the church fathers, the Septuagint was a praeparatio evangelica by which God in his providence prepared the gentiles to receive Jesus of Nazareth as Messiah, prophesied by the Jewish Scriptures, as their own Lord and Savior. Moreover, due to an intense reception process during the early period of the church, notices Harl (1992, 33–​42), the Septuagint became gradually “un oeuvre autonom, détachée de son modèle,” with no need to be related to the Masoretic text. In spite of its long-​lasting popularity in the Eastern Church, the Septuagint remains a textual witness among other textual witnesses. Its textual relativity, clearly articulated in this handbook, may be explained along the following trajectories. First, the Septuagint is a translation, and like any translation, with the passing of time, the Septuagint needs to be revised. One of the most important revisions was Origen’s magnus opus Hexapla (mid-​third century AD). In this early Christian text-​critical work, the famous Alexandrian scholar seeks to revise, or more precisely, to improve the Septuagint text, by comparing it with the extant Hebrew pre-​Masoretic text (exclusively consonantal) and the three second-​century AD Jewish Greek translations (Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion), by placing the textual versions in six columns. The fifth column, the Quinta, contained the revised text of the Septuagint. This Hexaplaric recension of the Septuagint was frequently copied, and eventually translated into Syriac by Paul of Tella in AD 616. Known as the Syro-​Hexapla, this Syriac version of Origen’s Quinta was preserved partially (Prophets and Writings) in the ninth-​century Codex Ambrosianus Syrohexaplaris in Milan. As Hengel (2004, 36) well pointed out, through Origen’s Hexapla “the church was continually reminded that the LXX is only a translation that can never exceed the Hebrew original in dignity, but must, rather, always succeed it.” Second, the Septuagint’s transmission history is quite complex and convoluted, showing no clear attempts at textual standardization (unlike the Hexaplaric and post-​Hexaplaric recession exhibiting a pronounced standardization). The Old Greek (Septuagint) translation is preserved in three major uncial codices dating to the fourth–​fifth century AD (Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus) and many miniscule manuscripts dating to the ninth through fifteenth centuries. Thus, one cannot speak of the Septuagint, a single, easy-​to-​define textual entity. The Septuagint is simply a misnomer. Third, in the case of the book of Daniel, the Septuagint text (i.e., Old Greek) was replaced gradually by the Eastern Church with the late-​second-​century AD translation of Theodotion and is found in the fourth-​to fifth-​century uncial codices. However, the Septuagint text of Daniel (that is, the pre-​Theodotion Old Greek version) is still attested in the Syro-​Hexapla. Intriguingly, not only that in this book the latter text has displaced the former in their transmission histories but also the personality of Theodotion and the version associated with his

The Bible in Orthodox Christianity   7 name are shrouded in mystery. Furthermore, the ancient patristic sources perpetuate this mystery by both offering contradictory comments with regard to the provenance, time, and religious appurtenance of Theodotion and documenting a change of perception within the Christian church regarding his version, namely, from suspicion to a positive appreciation of its merits, leading to its acceptance. (Olariu, in this volume)

Fourth, the Septuagint is not the only biblical text employed by the church fathers. The patristic interpreters refer in their commentaries to other textual witnesses they have consulted. Here are a few of them: “Later Versions”; “Hexaplaric Versions”; “the Three (translators),” or simply, “Aquila,” “Symmachus,” and “Theodotion”; Ho Hebraios (“The Hebrew [translator]”); To Hebraikon (“The Hebrew [translation]”); Ho Syros (“The Syrian [translator]”); and To Samaritikon (“The Samaritan [translation]”) (Marcos 2000, 10–​11). During the first millennium, the Eastern Christian Church used the Septuagint as a working text while not refuting altogether the Hebrew text. The reasons the Eastern Church chose the Septuagint are not theological, but rather practical: “As practical reasons, one might mention, on the one hand, the ignorance of Hebrew and, on the other, the suspicion toward the Jews of possible falsification of the Hebrew text. Furthermore, at the time in question, Greek was, for the East, the lingua franca, and the interest of most Christian writers was not scientific but pastoral” (Konstantinou, in this volume). The debate on the authority of the biblical text began in the East relatively late, after the seventeenth century, almost concurrent with the debate on the extension of the biblical canon. The debates occurred during the controversies between Roman Catholics and Protestants with respect to the relationship between the Vulgate and the Hebrew text. Within this context of canon and texts, the Rudder (Greek, Pedalion)—​the codified canon law, by Nicodemus the Agiorite (1749–​1809), mentions the Septuagint as the Bible of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Up to the nineteenth century, with minor exceptions, Bible translations were done on the Septuagint. Nevertheless, modern Bible translations published by various Orthodox Churches show a more balanced and dispassionate view on making use of various textual witnesses (Mihăilă, in this volume).

The Peshitta The Syriac translation (Peshitta, Syriac, “simple, plain [translation]”), based on the Hebrew Bible, preserved in the sixth-​to seventh-​century Codex Ambrosianus of Milan, was probably completed by the second century AD. The Peshitta needs to be distinguished from the seventh-​century Syro-​Hexapla, the Syriac translation based on the revised Septuagint, more precisely, Origen’s Quinta. Was the older Peshitta done in a Jewish or Jewish Christian community? “While there is no conclusive evidence, it is clear that the Peshitta Old Testament is the work of translators who were quite apt in the Jewish tradition but also closely connected with early Syriac Christianity. By the third and fourth centuries, the transmission of the Peshitta was so strong that all later branches of the Syriac church adopted it as their standard text” (Kiraz, in this volume). One may add that the Hebrew Vorlage of the Peshitta is much closer to the Vorlage of the Masoretic text than to the Hebrew textual basis of the Septuagint. In a nutshell, the Peshitta

8   Eugen J. Pentiuc and Syro-​Hexapla are examples of textual fluidity and pluriformity with respect to the use of Scripture in the East, especially when one compares these textual witnesses to the biblical quotations in Syriac fathers such Ephrem the Syrian (d. AD 373) and Aphraates (fourth century). In addition to the ancient Ethiopian (Ge’ez) version, Peshitta is the only translation done in a language belonging to the same Semitic linguistic family as biblical Hebrew, hence its unique value to text-​criticism as well as to biblical interpretation.

Other Ancient Translations The same textual fluidity and pluriformity of the biblical text in the East is reflected by other ancient translations of Scripture, done and used by specific Oriental Orthodox communities.

Ethiopian The first translations of the Bible in classical Ethiopic language (Ge’ez) date back to the first half of the fourth century AD, when Christianity officially arrived to the kingdom of Aksum. The whole Bible was translated by the end of the seventh century AD, representing the decline of the kingdom of Aksum. Revisions followed until the nineteenth century, culminating with the textual standardization of the Ge’ez Bible that became the textus receptus. The Vorlage of the Ge’ez Old Testament belongs to the Septuagint textual family (i.e., uncial and miniscule manuscripts). Similar to Greek patristic interpreters, the andǝmta commentaries refer to other textual witnesses besides the Ge’ez Old Testament, such as “the Samaritan Pentateuch,” “the Septuagint,” and the Hebrew text (Abraha 2017). The effortless use of textual variants points to pluriformity of Scripture in the Orthodox Ethiopian Church.

Coptic The term “Coptic Bible” is used [ . . . ] to refer to the Coptic Language version of the Greek Christian Scriptures that was universally accepted by the Orthodox Church of Alexandria . . . by the fourth century, the entire canon of the Old and New Testament books was translated in at least the main Coptic dialect, Sahidic, as well as some of the books in several of the other literary dialects that were in use at that time: Akhmimic, Bohairic, Fayyumic, Lycopolitan, and Mesokemic. (Takla, in this volume)

The variety of dialects in which the Bible circulated testifies to textual fluidity.

Armenian Among ancient Bible translations, the Armenian version is probably the most conservative, showing a low degree of fluidity. “One of the unique characteristics of the Armenian translation of the Bible is that unlike many other versions, which have had a variety of independent

The Bible in Orthodox Christianity   9 retranslations over the years, the Armenian Bible has been passed down through the centuries largely unchanged, reaching us in very few versions” (Hambardzumyan, in this volume).

The Status of the Hebrew Text in Orthodox Christianity Childs (1979, 89) raises an important question: “Why should the Christian church be committed in any way to the authority of the Masoretic text when its development extended long after the inception of the church and was carried on within a rabbinic tradition?” Surely, the Christian Church has never been committed to the Hebrew Bible. Nevertheless, in the East, as in the West, Greek church fathers and writers (e.g., among others, Origen, Theodoret of Cyrus, John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa, Procopius of Gaza, Photius of Constantinople) have often pointed to or made use of the Hebrew text. Notably, both Gregory of Nyssa and John Chrysostom stressed that many of the “difficulties” of the Old Testament text are due to ignorance of the Hebrew language and its idioms. It took a considerable amount of courage and time before the first translations from Hebrew into vernacular languages of Orthodox communities were carried out. The Greeks Adamanthios Koraes and Neofytos Vamvas in Greece, in the first half of the nineteenth century and, almost simultaneously, the Russians Gerasim Pavsky and Filaret Drozdov are credited with the first Bible translations from Hebrew into modern languages (Konstantinou, in this volume). Reactions to this movement did not tarry. In 1848, the Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs refers to the Septuagint in categorical terms: “Our Church holds the infallible and genuine deposit of the Holy Scriptures, of the Old Testament a true and perfect version, of the New the divine original itself ” (Mihăilă, in this volume). Today it is a commonplace to have Orthodox biblical scholars working on the Hebrew text. However, things were much different in early 1980s, when I was writing my first doctoral dissertation, a classical commentary on Hosea done primarily from the Masoretic Text (Pentiuc 2002; Pentiuc et al. 2017), which was a novelty in my native Romanian Orthodox Church, and even later, when I published Jesus the Messiah in the Hebrew Bible (Pentiuc 2006b), seeking to regain those messianic aspects found in the Hebrew Bible (pre-​and Masoretic text), but overlooked by patristic commentaries, which were done predominantly on the Septuagint text. It is my strong hope that new generations of Orthodox biblical scholars will do exegetical work, looking at Old Greek and Hebrew textual witnesses with the same “awe and reverence as two sisters” (Philo, Life of Moses 2.40). Although not as obvious as in the case of the Old Testament, there is significant textual fluidity of the New Testament when one considers the pluriformity in which the latter has been transmitted throughout history (see below).

Open-​E nded Canon or Growing Scriptural Collection? The second section of this handbook covers various aspects of the biblical canon in Orthodox Christianity.

10   Eugen J. Pentiuc Unlike the well-​configured New Testament canon, except for the somehow convoluted trajectory of the book of Revelation (Baynes 2010), the Old Testament canon has an interesting history in general, and with respect to Orthodoxy, in particular (McDonald, in this volume). Characteristic of Orthodox views on the biblical canon, more precisely the Old Testament canon, is a balance between strictness and flexibility. While there is perfect agreement on the thirty-​nine books appropriated from the Jewish Bible, and held as canonical, that is, normative in terms of faith or doctrine, Orthodox Christianity has a more flexible view on the “outside” books (i.e., additions to the Septuagint and other Jewish Second Temple writings), with respect to their number and canonical status. One might mention that if early Christian authors speak of kanonizomena “canonized” or “canonical” books, beginning with late fourth century, the Greek noun kanōn “canon” comes to designate the corpus or list of canonical (normative) books, as one may see in Amphilochius of Iconium’s gloss (about AD 380): “This would be the most faultless canon of the divinely inspired Scriptures (kanōn . . . tōn theoneustōn Graphōn)” (Iambi ad Seleucum 319 [PG 37:1598]). There is no ecumenical or pan-​Orthodox (emphasis added) council in the East that decreed on the canonical status of these “outside” books. Athanasius of Alexandria, one of the few ancient Eastern Orthodox “authorities,” in his Thirty-​Ninth Festal Epistle, AD 367, divides the books (biblia) that a Christian might encounter into three groups: kanonizomena “canonized,” ou kanonizomena “noncanonized,” and apokrypha “apocrypha.” The Septuagint additions make up the second group, “noncanonized” or “noncanonical,” also termed anaginōskomena, “to be read, readable” (in public); in other words, the Septuagint additions, though noncanonical per se, can be read in the church for spiritual growth of the faithful. With respect to the first two groups of books (“canonized” and “noncanonized”—​ anaginōskomena “to be read, readable”), Athanasius wisely distinguishes between the two functions of Scripture, namely, “informative” and “formative.” On the one hand, he considers the thirty-​nine canonical (“canonized”) books of the Jewish Bible “fountains of salvation” (pēgai tou sōtēriou), because “only in these the doctrine of godliness (eusebeias didaskaleion) is proclaimed”; hence, the “canonized” books exercise the informative function of Scripture. On the other hand, Athanasius remarks, “there are other books outside of these (hetera biblia toutōn exōthen) indeed noncanonized (ou kanonizomena), but prescribed by the fathers to be read (tetypōmena de para tōn paterōn anaginōskesthai) by those who newly join us, and who wish to be instructed in the word of godliness (katēcheisthai ton tēs eusebeias logon)”; hence, the “noncanonized” (noncanonical) or anaginōskomena perform the “formative” function of Scripture. If in the fourth-​to fifth-​century AD Septuagint uncial codices, where anaginōskomena intercalate with canonical books, in Athanasius’s list the two groups are separated from one another (Pentiuc 2014, 115–​116). Unlike Athanasius’s favorable attitude toward the anaginōskomena, the Laodicea Council (about AD 363), a local council, though an important ancient “authority” in the East on matters of biblical canon, prohibits (canon 59) the reading of noncanonical books in church. The canon debate occurred in the East not as an internal problem, but rather in the context of the seventeenth century controversies between Protestants and Roman Catholics on the value of the Vulgate in relation to the Hebrew Bible (i.e., Masoretic text). With respect to the biblical canon, the Reformers placed the “outside” books (i.e., the Septuagint additions) at the end of the Old Testament (e.g., Luther’s Bible of 1534), calling them “Apocrypha,” that is, though not on par with the canonical books, they are useful and good for reading.

The Bible in Orthodox Christianity   11 This harsh attitude of the Reformers toward the Septuagint additions, made the Roman Catholic Church adopt at the Council of Trent (1545–​1563) a wider canon with forty-​six Old Testament books, including the Septuagint additions. The Tridentine decision on the biblical canon was ratified at the First Vatican Council (1869–​1870). The Eastern Orthodox found themselves caught in the midst of sixteenth-​to seventeenth-​century polemics between Protestants and Roman Catholics regarding the text and canon. The seventeenth-​ century Orthodox councils and “confessions,” while seeking to clarify Athanasius’s tripartite division of books, still popular in the East, came eventually to opt for either the narrower (Protestant) or wider (Roman Catholic) canon. On one hand, the confession of Cyril Loukaris (1629), influenced by Calvinism, excludes the Septuagint additions, called apokrypha, from the biblical canon. On the other hand, the Synod of Jerusalem (1672), convened by Patriarch Dositheus Notaras of Jerusalem, and Dositheus’s confession (a response to Loukaris’s confession) consider the Septuagint additions as canonical books, on par with the thirty-​nine canonical books of the Hebrew Bible, a view similar to the Roman Catholic stance. Moreover, the Russian Catechism of Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow (1823), excludes the Septuagint additions from the canon because they are not extant in Hebrew. The Septuagint additions returned to the Russian Bible in its 1956 edition. However, none of these statements and confessions should be taken as the Orthodox official view, since they all were crafted under the pressure of theological polemics between Protestants and Roman Catholics. Unlike Protestantism or Catholicism, where the number of canonical books has been well defined, Orthodox Christianity shows a great variety of canonical lists (McDonald, in this volume). At one end, there is the Eastern Orthodox Old Testament canon containing forty-​nine books: thirty-​nine canonical books of the Hebrew Bible and ten Septuagint additions (anaginōskomena: Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach or Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, 1 Maccabees, 3 Maccabees, 1 Esdras, 3 Esdras, with 4 Maccabees in the appendix). At the other end, there is the Ethiopian Bible, including eighty-​one books (in a particular arrangement), which is similar to the Eastern Orthodox (specifically Greek Orthodox) Bible, with a number of new additions (for the Old Testament: Jubilees, Enoch, 2 Ezra, Ezra Sutuel, Tegsats, Metsihafe Tibeb, Joseph son of Bengorion; and for the New Testament: Sirate Tsion, Tizaz, Gitsew, Abtilis, 1 Dominos, 2 Dominos, Clement, Didascalia). Note that in modern Bible editions (e.g., Bible in Amharic, 1996) the eight New Testament additions to the twenty-​ seven are called “Books of Church Order” (Assefa, in this volume; Abraha 2017). Today, Orthodox biblical scholars seek to understand the inner workings of the Christian Old Testament, more precisely, the relationship between the thirty-​nine books of the Hebrew Bible and the Septuagint additions. They ask whether the “outside” books should be considered an extension of the third section of the Jewish Bible, Ketuvim “Writings,” with a “formative purpose” (Pentiuc 2014, 107–​109), or as a “narrative complement” to the canonical books, e.g., Wisdom of Solomon as a complement-​match to Proverbs (Chirilă, in this volume). The status of the “outside” books (i.e., not extant in the Jewish Bible) is still debated within the Orthodox Christianity. According to Ulrich, one of the most important criteria for biblical canonicity is a community of faith that reflects and ratifies its sacred books. If one takes a closer look at various communities of faith making up the Orthodox Christianity (Roeber, in this volume), one notices that such reflective activity is hardly detectable, and the ratification process is restricted to a few statements and confessions crafted primarily under the pressure of external factors. In this situation when much more reflection needs to be done, one may dare to say that the Orthodox biblical canon is “open-​ended” or a “growing

12   Eugen J. Pentiuc collection” of scriptures, to use Ulrich’s coinage: “If the canon is by definition a closed list of books that have been considered, debated, sifted, and accepted, then talk of an open canon is confusing and counterproductive; it seems more appropriate to speak of a growing collection of books considered as sacred scripture” (Ulrich 2002, 34). In this context one may ask: Can the liturgical use of an “outside” book (Septuagint addition) replace the conciliar authority of an ecumenical or pan-​Orthodox council in granting that book canonical (normative) status? As one knows, the Septuagint additions have been used for centuries in Orthodox worship, both in hymnography and lectionary (Vassiliadis, in this volume). In Meyendorff ’s view, liturgical use cannot alone be a criterion of biblical canonicity: In spite of the fact that Byzantine patristic and ecclesiastical tradition almost exclusively uses the Septuagint as the standard Biblical text and that parts of the “longer” canon especially Wisdom are of frequent liturgical use Byzantine theologians remain faithful to a “Hebrew” criterion for Old Testament literature, which excludes texts originally composed in Greek. Modern Orthodox theology is consistent with this unresolved polarity when it distinguishes between “canonical” and “deuterocanonical” literature of the Old Testament, applying the first term only to the books of the “shorter” canon. (Meyendorff 1979, 7)

Related to biblical canon is the notion of biblical inspiration. In fact, all the canonical books (and authors) were thought to have been divinely inspired, as one can also surmise from Amphilochius’s earlier quoted collocation, “canon of the divinely inspired Scriptures (kanōn . . . tōn theoneustōn Graphōn).” For Orthodox, “the Scriptures are understood to be theanthropic, so that divine inspiration and human illumination cohere together” (Humphrey, in this volume). The Incarnation is the explanatory model of biblical inspiration. As the divine nature coexists with the human nature in the person of Christ, similarly God’s word coexists with or is vested in human words, and this unique symbiosis makes up the Scripture, which is “a God inspired scheme or image (eikon) of truth, but not truth itself. . . . If we declare Scripture to be self-​sufficient, we only expose it to subjective, arbitrary interpretation, thus cutting it away from its sacred source” (Florovsky 1972, 48). I conclude this section with the insightful comments of Agouridis on the “open-​ endedness” of the biblical canon in the Orthodox Church: Holy Scripture is not law but “witness,” and its writers are not legislators but “witnesses.” If for instance an archaeological pickaxe were to uncover an authentic epistle of Paul the Apostle, no one would imagine excluding it from the canon. Neither is there the least doubt that the discovery of new texts from early Christianity would pose any problem whatsoever regarding the essence of faith. Through such a new possession our knowledge and spiritual experience would simply be enriched in a truly authentic and genuine way. (Agouridis 1972, 55)

Toward an Orthodox Hermeneutics As already mentioned in this introduction, a characteristic of Orthodox Christianity is Scripture’s centrality within Tradition. The inseparableness of the two translates ineluctably into a “traditional” hermeneutics.

The Bible in Orthodox Christianity   13 However, given the Orthodox understanding of Tradition, as the Church’s life under the guidance of the Holy Spirit toward the eschaton, the grand finale of time and history, the attribute “traditional” needs to be taken in a relative sense. For this reason, the Orthodox biblical hermeneutics, if such an entity does really exist, is always in transit, not yet fully configured, but ever struggling to strike a balance between tradition and modernity. I term this process “recontextualization of traditional hermeneutics.” In other words, what was handed over in terms of hermeneutics, namely, the interpretive Tradition, is continuously recast in new settings so that the traditional hermeneutics may keep up with new approaches to the Bible. By recontextualization, I mean traditional hermeneutics in “conversation” with various modern and post-​modern approaches toward the use and interpretation of Scripture. While aiming at its own configuration, the Orthodox hermeneutics proves to be intrinsically conversationalist, open to a dynamic dialogue. When I use “traditional” with reference to hermeneutics, I think primarily of ancient Christian (“patristic”) interpretations. As mentioned earlier, tradition consists of various slices (sections), and one of them is the church fathers’ writings that have had significant and long-​lasting relevance for Orthodox biblical hermeneutics. What follow are some examples of hermeneutical recontextualization. Since most of the examples are discussed in detail in this handbook, this is a succinct list of personal remarks on various hermeneutical topics.

Traditional Hermeneutics and Modern Historical-​ Critical Approaches Patristic exegesis is the traditional way through which Orthodox Christianity has read, interpreted, and conveyed the sacred Scriptures throughout history. “Patristic exegesis” (or more accurately, “interpretation”) is a catchall phrase designating the church fathers’ interpretations that were preserved in biblical commentaries or theological treatises, to mention only two of the most representative genres. With respect to methodology, patristic reading of Scripture is a “discursive” mode of interpretation (Pentiuc 2014, 169–​198). The church fathers’ biblical commentaries follow almost the same structure, namely, small textual units followed by commentary focusing on key words and phrases, hence the linearity and sequentiality of the patristic exegesis. This discursive, analytical mode of interpretation stands in contrast to “liturgical exegesis” (see what follows) that tends to be imagistic and intuitive, as the scriptural material, sometimes a mere word or phrase gleaned from the Old Greek version of the Scripture, is interweaved in the poetical framework of liturgical hymns. In the case of liturgical exegesis, an intricate web of mini intertextualities built within a hymn’s tapestry replaces the linearity and sequentiality of patristic commentaries. Patristic exegesis, as with the entire spectrum of ancient Jewish and Christian interpretations, relies on four assumptions: Scripture is a cryptic document that needs to be decoded; is relevant for all times; is perfectly harmonious, hence errorless (i.e., biblical inerrancy); and is divinely inspired. For the church fathers, Scripture has various senses or meanings—​e.g., literal sense, history, allegory, typology, theoria, and anagoge—​all corresponding to the medieval fourfold sense of Scripture: historical or literal, allegorical or typological, tropological or moral, and anagogic or eschatological. The interpreters’ role is to detect and expose the hidden senses

14   Eugen J. Pentiuc of Scripture according to the theological, spiritual, and moral needs of the faith community these interpreters represent. In addition to its golden age and long-​lasting legacy, patristic exegesis offers Orthodox biblical scholars and readers important “insights that help shape a vision for reading Scripture that is centered on Christ, that insists on the import of the text for ethical or spiritual life, and that is attuned to the complexities and polyvalence of the text without losing sight of its crucial historical dimension” (Torrance, in this volume). This modeling role of patristic exegesis on how one reads and understands the Scriptures applies to both Eastern and Oriental communities with their specific hermeneutical procedures and foci. For instance, the “exchange” element with respect to God’s covenant with Israel, so poetically conveyed by Ephrem the Syrian: “He gave us divinity, we gave him humanity” (Hymns on Faith 5:17), is probably the defining feature of Syriac patristic exegesis. The interpretive act is a synergeia “cooperation” between God, the main author of Scripture, and hearers or readers willing to open themselves to the illuminating work of the Holy Spirit (Brock, in this volume). As for the ancient Coptic scriptural interpretation in its aural and visual expressions, this may be compared to “weaving a textile garment” with a pronounced transformative dimension: “If there was any single purpose of reading, interpreting, and living by the measure of the scriptures, it was to receive the divine light that allows one to see and participate in the spiritual realm” (Farag, in this volume). With respect to ancient Ethiopic patristic exegesis with its two distinctive systems of commentary, tǝrgwame and andǝmta, based respectfully on Ge’ez and Amharic translations of the Scripture, this requires a long period of study in order to be acquainted with oral and textual hermeneutical traditions of the church fathers (Alehegne, in this volume). In the case of the Armenian tradition, the Bible is the primary source of spirituality and prayer life, hence this community’s scriptural hermeneutics is foremost liturgical in content. The defining element of Armenian hermeneutics is a balance between allegorical and literal interpretations (Hovhanessian, in this volume). So significant has been the impact of the church fathers on scriptural interpretation that canon 19 of the Council of Trullo (AD 692) codified patristic exegesis as the only authoritative biblical interpretation in the East. The preeminent position of patristic exegesis in Orthodoxy as a whole is still celebrated by scholars and faithful belonging to this important branch of Christianity. For instance, the twentieth-​century Orthodox theologian Georges Florovsky coined the phrase “neo-​patristic synthesis” in an attempt to “sanitize” Orthodox theology from Western influences through a rather decisive return to the church fathers: “The return to the fathers was to be, according to Florovsky, not a slavish repetition of their teachings, and lapsing into patristic fundamentalism, but rather an assimilation of their creative spirit, generating fresh insights” (Sylianopoulos, in this volume). Unfortunately, Forovsky’s “neo-​ synthesis” was not meant to be a biblical approach per se, but a mere return to patristic thought in general terms. Surely, no one can overlook the intrinsic value of the church fathers’ contribution to biblical hermeneutics as an important phase in reception history. However, today, the great challenge, if not a conundrum, is how Orthodox biblical scholars or readers of Scripture might bring the ancient church fathers’ interpretations, if not in dialogue, at least in a state of complementarity with modern historical-​critical approaches to the Bible.

The Bible in Orthodox Christianity   15 The foremost feature of patristic exegesis is its predominantly Christological outlook. Each textual unit is part of the whole (Scripture) whose hypothesis (perspective) and skopos (unifying purpose) is Christ, the climax of God’s revelation and the hermeneutical key in reading the Scripture as witness to the former. If ancient Jewish interpreters, following the midrashic method, sought to analyze (Hebrew word midrash derives from the root d-​r-​š “to search, to investigate”) the biblical text in detail, patristic interpreters were rather interested in the big, full picture (skopos), namely, the Scripture as a whole. I might say, running the risk of oversimplifying, the ancient Jewish interpreters are the precursors of modern historical-​critical exegesis, while the ancient Christian interpreters are the forerunners of modern biblical theology. (No wonder why biblical theology emerged as a Christian discipline!) Even the historical-​literal Antiochene exegesis shows a profound theological preoccupation (Nassif, in this volume). However, in a more nuanced analysis, the Antiochene interpreters are to be considered the precursors of the modern quest for the literal sense of Scripture (Seitz, in this volume). In their tireless work aimed at scriptural harmonization, the patristic interpreters excelled themselves in identifying thematic and lexical intertextualities, hence the synchronic orientation of patristic exegesis. The Church Fathers viewed the Scriptures as a network of concentric circles with the Christ-​event at its very center (see discussion earlier in this article), which, continuously refreshed by liturgical anamnesis, causes a ripple effect throughout the scriptural corpus: small circular waves generating more and wider waves all heading for the ultimate frontier, the eschaton horizon. Reading the Scriptures in a synchronic way, on a horizontal plane, the church fathers were interested in detecting various intertextualities between these scriptural “waves” generated and sustained by the pivotal Christ-​event. In this synchronic, horizontal exegetical framework, we may be inclined to read the Scripture “from the end, looking forward,” namely from the Cross perspective—​Jesus’s final and perfect revelation as “son of man” and “Son of God”—​to the beginning of salvation history, while looking with expectation toward the new age to come (Behr, in this volume). In contrast with patristic exegesis, modern historical-​critical approaches to the Bible are predominantly diachronic in their orientation. Modern biblical scholars may be portrayed as textual “archeologists,” digging in the density of the biblical text, analyzing each text as an autonomous literary unit, beginning with its oral phase up to the last editorial touches. The modern biblical scholars view the Bible as a textual mosaic consisting of small literary units that need to be individually analyzed on a vertical plane, from the earliest to the latest phases of their literary development. The greatest difficulty of bringing patristic exegesis into a sort of complementarity with modern historical-​criticism lies with the essentially different methodologies employed by either of these two modes of interpretation, namely, synchronic versus diachronic (Pentiuc 2006a). If the ancient interpreter seeks to detect intertextualities by focusing on hapax legomena and rare lexical forms or phrases, and the modern historical-​critical worker digs the text on small areas to redeem the initial meaning of a literary unit (pericope), the chance of the two meeting in order to listen to and benefit from one another is realistically quite low. For this reason, instead of contemplating a dialogue unlikely to be reached, one should struggle to identify the same literary units zoomed in by both ancient interpreters and modern biblical scholars, and see how the results of their hermeneutically distinctive activities on that

16   Eugen J. Pentiuc targeted literary unit may be used in complementarity, always keeping in mind the polysemy of the biblical text itself, so well conveyed by the Psalmist: “God spoke once, I heard these two things” (hapax elalēsen ho theos dyo tauta ēkousa) (Ps 61/​62:12 [LXX]). Why should Orthodox biblical scholars need to strike a balance between their patristic hermeneutical tradition and modern historical-​critical approaches to the Bible (Fotopoulos, in this volume)? The ancient patristic assumption that Scripture was divinely inspired, hence the divine-​human character of Scripture, requires that scriptural interpretation be done in light of incarnational theology. If Christ as God’s incarnate Word is equally God and man at the same time, similarly an accurate interpretation of Scripture will underline both, its human and divine, aspects. For this reason, both approaches, ancient patristic and modern historical-​critical, should be considered as equally beneficial. Florovsky’s (see earlier) ingenious metaphor, Scripture as icon of truth, rather than the truth itself, points to a tight, inseparable relationship between the human and divine aspects of Scripture. As in the case of an Orthodox sanctified icon, where the entity (Christ, Mary, etc.) and its pictorial representation are mysteriously united, the same holds true with God’s word and its textual icon (Scripture), both of which share an intertwining, entanglement-​ like relationship. The modern textualists in search of the original meaning of a particular text and the ancient seekers of the hidden senses of Scripture, based on the assumption that Scripture is cryptic, when working separately proceed along different trajectories that diverge from a traditional hermeneutical perspective, because they reduce Scripture to one aspect, either human or divine, thus breaking the icon of truth. For this reason, striving for dialogue or complementarity between ancient interpretations and modern biblical approaches should be a must for those who want to strike a balance between tradition and modernity. Among the modern biblical disciplines, textual criticism, given its long-​lasting Christian practice beginning with Origen’s Hexapla, is the best candidate for a conversation with patristic exegesis. It might be reflected in the study of Old Testament lections, often times, relying on Syro-​Hexaplaric readings (Pentiuc 2021) or in the use of lectionaries in the current New Testament textual criticism (Paulson, in this volume) or in the recent reevaluation of the Byzantine form text for critical editions (Crisp, in this volume). Another example of complementarity between tradition and modernity is Orthodox biblical scholars’ engagement with biblical archeology (Roddy, in this volume) and Ancient Near Eastern languages and literatures, especially Northwest Semitic philology (Pentiuc 2001, Pentiuc et al. 2017) aimed at the reconstruction of the historical-​linguistic context of the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) and New Testament. Sitting at the same round table, reading the same Scripture while listening to one another and reflecting on biblical polysemy (Ps 61/​2:12) is a wonderful thing. École biblique et archéologique française in Jerusalem (EBAF) through its intriguing Study Bible project, known under the acronym B.E.S.T. (La Bible en ses traditions) has achieved this goal, by fostering complementarity between ancient, synchronic modes of interpretation (Jewish and Christian, alike) and modern historical-​critical approaches to the Bible (Venard, in this volume; Pentiuc et al. 2017). As part of this modern praiseworthy and ongoing quest for bridging the ancient and modern modes of interpretation, one may mention the Bible-​ theology-​ science and Christian-​ Jewish “conversations.” Pertaining to the former, we are reminded of the Church’s emphasis on moral theology as new scientific theories are continuously looming

The Bible in Orthodox Christianity   17 (Chatsinikolaou, in this volume). Moreover, given the provisional character of science, Christian theologians need to be guided by modesty and patience while entering in dialogue with science (Wilkinson, in this volume). As for the Jewish-​Christian dialogue, besides the religious-​political-​cultural overtones (Azar, in this volume), two corrections are needed from the Christian side. On the one hand, we should acknowledge the disastrously practical consequences of the theological supersessionism and anti-​Jewish sentiments detectable in and nourished by liturgical hymns (Pentiuc 2014), even though initially they served a rhetorical purpose by imitating not a few prophetic admonishes against ancient Israel found in the Scripture itself (Bucur, in this volume). On the other hand, there is a need and commendable effort on the part of modern Orthodox biblical scholars to rediscover and employ the ancient Jewish (e.g., Targumim, Midrashim, etc.) interpretations in complementarity with the church fathers’ works for a deeper and more theological-​spiritual understanding of the Christian Bible (Beck, in this volume).

Quo vadis? Despite the fragmented reading of the Bible that came out of the Reformation and Enlightenment leading to the “death of Scripture” and emergence of the “Bible” as an academic entity with its hermeneutics and a number of new biblical disciplines (Legaspi 2010), Orthodox scriptural hermeneutics, through an ongoing and sustained process of recontextualization, has always been and continues to be holistic and integrative in its content and scope. The integrative reading relies on the integrity of the Bible itself calling for a canonical approach. Through an integrative reading of the Bible, and if I might add, through balancing and bridging tradition with modernity, there is a “possibility of knowledge becoming wisdom in relation to an overall reading of the Bible” (Moberly, in this volume). An integrative reading requires looking at Scripture simultaneously as a unity and diversity of constitutive literary units. To reach such a perspective, Tradition needs to be recontextualized by being complemented with modern historical-​critical approaches focusing on literary units in their diversity, while holding tightly to traditional Orthodox hermeneutics. Earlier I listed a few ways this recontextualization of Tradition can be done. In the following lines, I mention briefly a few venues by which we can foster creatively the traditional hermeneutics. First, patristic interpretations should be critically evaluated and appropriately used in complementarity with modern approaches (Despotis, in this volume; Mihoc, in this volume). Second, the liturgical recontextualization of Orthodox biblical hermeneutics is not a novelty. Scripture has been always read and interpreted as part of the communal worship (Vassiliadis, in this volume; Nikolakopoulos, in this volume; Alexopoulos, in this volume). However, there is a need for an ongoing thorough investigation of the hermeneutical procedures used by hymnographers and iconographers in interpreting the Scriptures. Unlike the patristic biblical commentaries that are linear, sequential, and analytical, liturgical interpretations are intuitive, imagistic and multidirectional. Although daring at first

18   Eugen J. Pentiuc sight, a comparison between liturgical exegesis and cubist art might prove helpful. Similar to a cubist painter who creatively mixes cubes and other geometrical and abstract forms while using the “collage technique” to assist the beholders in reconstructing the reality in their own ways, the hymnographer combines bits and pieces of scriptural material while using hapax legomena and rare words or phrases as “hermeneutical pointers” to assist the hearers or readers in reconstructing salvation history in their own ways. If this analogy with cubism proves to be correct, then liturgical exegesis may be considered as a precursor of postmodern “reader-​centered” approaches to Scripture (Pentiuc 2021). Third, related to liturgical contextualization is the pastoral application of Scripture and its interpretations, a perennial goal of Orthodox hermeneutics, beginning with patristic interpreters up to the present day, focusing on concrete faith communities and their spiritual needs. Current efforts by Orthodox clergy and scholars to amend the past shortcomings in fostering biblical literacy among faithful are quite commendable (Pappas, in this volume). In this teaching ministry with respect to Scripture, women—​faithful and scholars—​hold a place of honor (Purpura, in this volume). Fourth, one should not forget that Scripture is above all a preeminent source of spiritual renewal with a strong transformative power. “The written word of God becomes God’s transformative word in prayer, worship, study, preaching, and teaching” (Stylianopoulos, in this volume). For this reason, Scripture should be not merely an appendix to but an essential part of the daily prayer-​life, as Jerome beautifully puts it: “Do you pray? You speak to the Bridegroom. Do you read [the Scripture]? He speaks to you” (Letters 22.25). There are daring voices today within the traditional landscape of Orthodox biblical hermeneutics asking for free research done by “well-​trained biblical exegetes who are Orthodox but fully competent to engage in contemporary criticism. . . . Orthodox scholars must be able to pursue their academic research with complete freedom, even if their results do not conform to however local Church authorities interpret ‘Orthodox teaching.’ . . . Other scholars—​and indeed all the faithful interested in such issues—​provide the necessary community for evaluating individual judgment” (Wallace, in this volume). Such a courageous stance reflects a significant shift from the twentieth to the current century. If in the second half of the last century, Orthodox biblical scholars were primarily theologians by formation, we can currently foresee the emergence of a new breed of biblical scholars trained in well-​recognized Bible departments and publishing their works with prestigious academic presses. I would personally like to see more Orthodox scholars working directly on the biblical text than using the reception history as a proxy to Scripture. Moreover, I sense a certain “fear” of the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) and a notable shortage of Old Testament scholars among the Orthodox. This unfortunate situation is due in part to those problematic texts often and erroneously associated only with the Hebrew Bible, though they are to be found throughout the entire Christian scriptural corpus. Far from putting one away from reading or studying the Old Testament, these “tough” texts, which “emerge from difficult circumstances (‘rough times’) can offer helpful, even therapeutic approaches to similarly hard scenarios of more recent vintage” (Strawn, in this volume). Not pretending to be a complete list of contributions and topics, the present handbook seeks to introduce the reader to Orthodox Christianity whose long-​standing engagement with the sacred Scriptures is quite rich, diverse, and to some extent unique.

The Bible in Orthodox Christianity   19

References Abraha, Tedros. 2017. “The Biblical Canon of the Orthodoks Täwaḥǝdo Church of Ethiopia and Eritrea.” In Il Canone Biblico Nelle Chiese Orientali, edited by Edward G. Farrugia and Emidio Vergani, 95–​122. Rome: Pontificio Instituto Orientale. Agouridis, Savvas. 1972. “Biblical Studies in Orthodox Theology.” GOTR 17/​1 (1972): 51–​62. Baynes, Leslie A. 2010. “The Canons of the New Testament.” In The Blackwell Companion to the New Testament, edited by David E. Aune, 91–​100. Oxford: Wiley-​Blackwell. Bock, Jerry, et al., 1964. Fiddler on the Roof. New York: Crown Publishers. Childs, Brevard S. 1979. Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture. Philadelphia: Fortress Press. Florovsky, Georges. 1972. Bible, Church, Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox View. Volume One in the Collected Works of Georges Florovsky. Belmont, MA: Nordland. Harl, Marguerite. 1992. “Traduire la Septante en Français: Pourquoi et Comment?” In La Langue de Japhet: Quinze Études sur la Septante et le Grec des Chrétiens, edited by Marguerite Harl, 33–​42. Paris: Éditions du Cerf. Hengel, Martin. 2004. The Septuagint as Christian Scripture: Its Prehistory and the Problem of Its Canon. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic. Legaspi, Michael C. 2010. The Death of Scripture and the Rise of Biblical Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Marcos, Natalio Fernández. 2000. The Septuagint in Context: Introduction to the Greek Versions of the Bible. Translated by Wilfred G. E. Watson. Leiden: Brill. McGuckin, John A. 2008. The Orthodox Church: An Introduction to Its History, Doctrine, and Spiritual Culture. Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell. Meyendorff, John. 1979. Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes. New York: Fordham University Press. Pentiuc, Eugen J. 2001. West Semitic Vocabulary in the Akkadian Texts from Emar. Harvard Semitic Studies 49. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Suffering Love: A Commentary on Hosea with Patristic Pentiuc, Eugen J. 2002. Long-​ Annotations. Holy Cross Orthodox Press. Pentiuc, Eugen J. 2006a. “Between Hebrew Bible and Old Testament: Synchronic and Diachronic Modes of Interpretation.” SVTQ 50/​4, 381–​396. Pentiuc, Eugen J. 2006b. Jesus the Messiah in the Hebrew Bible. New York/​ Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press. Pentiuc, Eugen J. 2014. The Old Testament in Eastern Orthodox Tradition. New York: Oxford University Press. Pentiuc, Eugen J. 2021. Hearing the Scriptures: Liturgical Exegesis of the Old Testament in Byzantine Orthodox Tradition. New York: Oxford University Press. Pentiuc, Eugen J., et al. 2017. Hosea: The Word of the LORD That Happened to Hosea. The Bible in Its Traditions 3. Under the direction of Olivier-​Thomas Venard, O.P. École Biblique et Archéologique Française de Jérusalem. Leuven: Peeters Publishers. Stylianopoulos, Theodore G. 2009. “Scripture and Tradition in the Church.” In The Cambridge Companion to Orthodox Christian Theology, edited by Mary M. Cunningham and Elizabeth Theokritoff, 21–​34. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ulrich, Eugene. 2002. “The Notion and Definition of Canon.” In The Canon Debate, edited by Lee Martin McDonald and James A. Sanders, 21–​36. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. Zizioulas, John D. 1985. Being as Communion. Contemporary Greek Theologians 4. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press.

Pa rt I

TEXT

Chapter 1

The Pl ace of t h e Hebrew Ol d Testam ent T e xt i n the Eastern C hu rc h Miltiadis Konstantinou Introduction On the September 29, 2018, in Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin, Armenia, a Memorandum of Understanding and Collaboration between the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Churches, and the United Bible Societies was formally signed.1 As explicitly stated in this memorandum, “For the Eastern Orthodox Church and Oriental Orthodox Churches the Holy Scripture is inseparable from the Holy Tradition of the Church and its mission in the world, and is addressed primarily to their faithful (laos tou Theou). Therefore, the reading, interpretation and proclamation of the Holy Scripture take place primarily in the sacramental life and the living experience of their Churches.” Both parties “are committed through mutual support and close collaboration . . . to develop Bible translations and editions which are appropriate for Eastern and Oriental Orthodox audiences, as detailed in the UBS Guidelines for Scripture Translation (2004).”

1 To achieve the goal of promoting the partnership between the United Bible Societies and the Orthodox Church a U.B.S. and Patriarchate representatives’ meeting was held from October 3 to 5, 1998, at the headquarters of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Fanari, to determine the framework of the partnership between them. A more extended meeting, with a view of exploring further cooperation of the United Bible Societies with the Churches of the East, in which the General Secretaries of National Bible Societies in the area of Europe–​Middle East and representatives of the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches took part, was held from February 1 to 3, 1999, in Larnaca, Cyprus, and Antelias, Beirut, Lebanon. A similar meeting with representatives of other Orthodox Churches and with the same goal was held later that same year (from September 30 to October 4) in El-​Escorial, Madrid, Spain. Several other meetings followed these first steeps: in Larnaca, Cyprus (2003); in Volos, Greece (2005); in Athens, Greece (2006); and Moscow, Russia (2007).

24   Miltiadis Konstantinou

The Old Testament Text during the First Millennium of Christianity The signing of this memorandum marks a significant breakthrough in the field of United Bible Societies, as they now agree to adopt translations of the Old Testament text that are not based on the Masoretic text, but on texts Orthodox Churches use in their worship. As it is well known, the Eastern Church since its birth has used as Old Testament text basically that of the Septuagint (LXX). This fact however must not lead to the conclusion that she has accepted Septuagint as the sole authority for the text of the Orthodox Old Testament. Such a conclusion is proven to be inaccurate for three main reasons: 1. The Canon problem, closely connected with the issue of the Old Testament text, was never faced by the Eastern Church as an internal problem, and therefore could not have obliged her to be tied to a specific textual tradition. 2. Even the Church writers who raised the issue of the canon of the Old Testament and opted for the narrow Jewish canon, also made use of the Septuagint as text without being bound thereby to accept all the books of this corpus. 3. The canon of forty-​nine books traditionally said to be valid for the Greek-​speaking Orthodox Church, contained fewer books than the Septuagint. Indeed, one book of this corpus, Daniel, does not come from the Septuagint, but from the translation of Theodotion. This last observation alone would have been sufficient to prove that the Church never tied herself slavishly to a specific textual tradition, but freely, and with a critical spirit, chose the text that could best serve her needs. Therefore, the reasons that led the Church to the adoption of the Septuagint text were not theological but practical. As practical reasons one might mention, on the one hand, the ignorance of Hebrew and, on the other, the suspicion toward the Jews of possible falsification of the Hebrew text. Furthermore, at the time in question, Greek was, for the East, the lingua franca, and the interest of most Christian writers was not scientific but pastoral. Therefore, in their writings they could refer to and comment on a text that would be comprehensible by all. It should be noted, however, that at least until the tenth century the Jews also used the Greek language in their worship.2 The disputes between Jews and Christians concerning the understanding of some crucial for their faith passages led the Jews to reject the LXX, which was adopted by the Christian Church as her own Holy Bible, and to replace it with new translations, closer to the Hebrew text. The best-​known example of the difference between the Jewish and Christian understanding of a passage is Isa 7:14, where the Hebrew word “‫‘( ”עַ לְ מָ ה‬almah) is rendered by the LXX with the word παρθένος (=​ “virgin”)—​giving the Christian the possibility to sow here a prophecy of the virgin birth of Christ—​instead of

2 Nicholas de Lange, “The Greek Bible Translations of the Byzantine Jews,” in Paul Magdalino and Robert Nelson (eds.), The Old Testament in Byzantium, Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2010, pp. 39–​54 (42f.f).

The Hebrew Old Testament Text in the Eastern Church    25 the more appropriate word νεάνις (=​“girl”). The attempt of the Jews to distance themselves from the LXX translation led to various revisions of the Greek biblical text, as well as new translations, most notably those of Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus. This paved the way for the predominance among the Jews of the text of Aquila, but without ever becoming a kind of authorized version. The different perception of the importance of the biblical text between Jews and Christians also played an important role in this development. From the beginning, Judaism linked the preservation of its national and cultural identity with the preservation of the Hebrew text of the Bible in its most authentic form; meanwhile, in contrast, the missionary interest of Christianity led very early to the creation of numerous translations, in order to make the message of the Gospel accessible to as many peoples as possible. The key question in this case, then, is not whether the Church used the Hebrew text of the Jewish Bible in her Scripture interpretation, but how the Church incorporated the Synagogue Bible into its own Christian Bible. The beginning of this process is in some way described already in the New Testament. There is no doubt that the part of the Scripture, called by the Christians “The Old Testament,” was the Holy Bible of both Jesus and his Apostles. According to the “account” of the evangelist Luke, when Jesus appeared in public for the first time in the Synagogue of his village, Nazareth (Luke 4:16–​21), he was asked to read something from the book of the prophet Isaiah. He found the passage Isa 61:1, he read it, and, when he finished reading, he began his preaching with the following declaration: “What you have just heard me read has come true today” (Luke 4:21 CEV). The same evangelist narrates that later, when someone asks Jesus about how to gain eternal life (Luke 10:25–​27), Jesus refer his interlocutor to two passages, from Deuteronomy (6:5) and Leviticus (19:18) respectively: “The Scriptures say, ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, strength, and mind.’ They also say, ‘Love your neighbors as much as you love yourself ’ ” (Luke 10:27 CEV). And at the end of Luke’s Gospel, there is the description of an encounter between the risen Jesus and two of his disciples (Luke 24:13-​–​27), during which “Jesus explained everything written about himself in the Scriptures, beginning with the Law of Moses and the Books of the Prophets” (Luke 24:27 CEV); and later, in another meeting with his disciples, “Jesus said to them, ‘While I was still with you, I told you that everything written about me in the Law of Moses, the Books of the Prophets, and in the Psalms had to happen.’ Then he helped them understand the Scriptures” (Luke 24:44–​45 CEV). It is therefore obvious that only if the Old Testament is regarded as part of the Christian Bible does the content of the New Testament make sense; only thus is it legitimate to read the New Testament as Holy Scripture. This can easily be confirmed by observing the manner in which the Church incorporates the Jewish Scriptures into her own canon. To be specific: The arrangement of the biblical works in the Jewish canon is intended to emphasize the importance of the Law. In consequence, the books that make up the collection of the Law rank first in the Synagogue’s canon. The law is immediately followed by the corpus of “Prophets.” In the first book of this section, the book of Joshua, God is presented as giving Moses’s successor the following commandment right from the start: “Be strong and brave! Be careful to do everything my servant Moses taught you. Never stop reading The Book of the Law he gave you. Day and night you must think about what it says. If you obey it completely, you and Israel will be able to take this land” (Josh 1:7–​8 CEV). The last book of the corpus, Malachi, ends with a similar command: “Don’t ever forget the laws and teachings I gave my servant Moses on Mount Sinai” (Mal 3:22 [4:4] CEV). So, the second collection

26   Miltiadis Konstantinou of the biblical works, taken as a unit, begins and ends with a reminder of the obligation to observe the Law faithfully, and the same is repeated in the third corpus. The “Writings” start with the book of Psalms, in the first of which the people who “find happiness in the Teaching of the Lord, and they think about it day and night” (Ps 1:2 CEV) are blessed. Similarly, the last books of the corpus, Chronicles, consist of a summary of the history of Israel aiming to remind the people of Judah, who were trying to reassemble in the wake of the Babylonian captivity, that their survival depended on faithfully observing the Law and exercising worship with exactitude. By contrast, the arrangement of the books of the Bible in the Christian canon aims to form these writings into a sort of introduction to the New Testament. In the Christian Old Testament, the Law does not constitute a discrete group of books but is included in a broader grouping under the heading “Historical Books.” In this grouping, all the biblical writings that are narrative in character are arranged according to the chronological order of the events they describe, so as to produce an integrated narrative beginning with the creation of the world and going up to the last centuries before Christ. The object of this narrative is to show how evil came into the world because of man, with the result that it became necessary for God to intervene in human history; it is meant to prepare humanity to receive the salvation that Jesus Christ will bring. The Law now loses its central importance and becomes a “tutor until Christ came” (Gal 3:24). The second corpus of scriptural writings in the Christian canon comprises the books that are poetic and didactic in character. In the “Poetic Books” the people sing praises to their God and address their petitions and complaints to him, as well as their thanks for the benefactions they receive; and, above all, they express their hopes for the coming of Christ. The “Didactic Books,” on the other hand, are a treasury of divine wisdom, which will be identified by the Christian Church with the second person of the Holy Trinity (1 Cor 1:24): for Wisdom “sits by the throne” of God (Ws 9:4) precedes time and creation (Pro 8:22–​31) and “is a breath of the power of God and an emanation of the pure glory of the Almighty . . . a reflection of eternal light and a spotless mirror of the activity of God and an image of his goodness (Ws 7:25–​26 NETS). Finally, the Eastern Christian canon concludes with the “Prophetic Books.” The content of these books is considered by the Church principally as announcing in advance the coming of Christ, and the various books are arranged in such a way that the image of the awaited Redeemer becomes gradually clearer. Thus, the Christian Old Testament ends—​according to the classification of the works in the editions that follow the Orthodox tradition—​with the book of Daniel, in which the resurrection of the dead is proclaimed (Dan 12:1–​3) and the figure of the “Son of the Man” is described through a magnificent vision as “coming with the clouds of heaven, and he was presented to the Eternal God. He was crowned King and given power and glory, so that all people, of every nation and race would serve him. He will rule forever, and his Kingdom is eternal, never to be destroyed” (Dan 7:13–​14 CEV). Precisely this same title, “Son of Man,” will be used in the very next book of the Christian Bible, the Gospel according to St. Matthew, every time Jesus speaks of himself (Matt 8:20; 9:6; 10:23; 11:19; 12:8, 32, 40; etc.). Nonetheless, the writers of the Church were fully conscious of the fact that, by quoting the Septuagint text, they were offering a translated text with all the shortcomings that this might involve—​something they never tried to disguise. Indicative for this argument are the views of Gregory of Nyssa, who, in order to counter the alleged intelligibility of the

The Hebrew Old Testament Text in the Eastern Church    27 Old Testament, stressed that difficulties in understanding the Old Testament text were due to deficient renderings of Hebrew syntax into Greek, and he pointed out that the problem would have been solved if those who leveled the charges had had sufficient knowledge of Hebrew.3 John Chrysostom shared the same view, highlighting that the reason for difficulty in understanding the Old Testament lay in problems of semantic transfer, from the source text into another language.4 Much later, during the ninth century, Patriarch Photius returned to the subject in question and enumerated ten shortcomings of the translation vis-​à-​vis the original text.5 These examples demonstrate not only that the Church did not reject the original Hebrew Old Testament text but also that the Church writers in fact frequently referred to it when trying to find solutions to hermeneutic problems or to elucidate ambiguities in the Septuagint. The extant tables for transcribing the Hebrew alphabet into Greek dated from the fourth to the tenth century, lead to the same conclusion. It is noteworthy that in these tables the recording of the alphabet is done by the teaching method of the time, namely, memorization—​a fact which testifies to the interest by church officials in the teaching and learning of Hebrew.6 A typical example is enough to show how ecclesiastical writers attempt to deal with problems arising from misinterpreted passages of the Septuagint text. Procopius of Gaza (AD 465–​527),7 when translating Isa 9:6 (“and his name will be called ‘Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace’ ”), quotes the various translations of the passage from the ancient translators Symmachus, Aquila, and Theodotion. It is interesting that Procopius not only cited the various translations of the passage but also attempted to interpret them. Thus, he attributed the omission of the name of God by the three latter translators to psychological reasons: “They were awed to place the name of God to a born child.” He went even farther and, in order to defend the Septuagint, went back to the original Hebrew text. After having presented several passages where the Hebrew word ’el is rendered by “God,” he reached the conclusion that the Septuagint translators were correct in translating ’el gibor as “Mighty God.”8 The same practice was followed by Procopius in all his work. These items, besides the demonstrative character of their presentation, suffice to support the view that the Church during its first millennium, did not tie itself to a specific textual tradition of the Old Testament, nor did it ever reject the original Hebrew text. It was for purely practical reasons that it used the Septuagint text. The examples of Origen (AD 185–​ 254) and Eusebius (AD 265–​340), who paid special attention to the later translations of the Hebrew text into Greek, confirm the truth of this claim. Origen included, as is well known, all the translations that were in use during his time, along with the Hebrew text twice, in Hebrew letters and in Greek letters, in his great synoptic compilation, the Hexapla, while Eusebius considered them as divinely inspired as that of the LXX and their study necessary 3 

BEPES (=​Library of Greek Fathers and Ecclesiastical Writers), vol. 66, p. 130 (in Greek). PG 56,178. 5  PG 101,816ABC. 6  Elias Oikonomos, The Hebrew Language and the Greek Fathers, Bulletin of Biblical Studies, Vol. 13 (N.S.)/​Jan.–​Jun. 1994 (Vassilios Vellas in Memoriam), pp. 29–​47 (in Greek). 7  PG 87, 1817–​2718. 8  PG 87, 2005–​2008A. 4 

28   Miltiadis Konstantinou to clarify what the LXX left obscure. As he characteristically states, “If somewhere it is necessary, we do not refrain from the versions of the newer interpreters that were made after it [i.e., the LXX] and which the Jews prefer to use, in order to present the truth in a safer way from all sides.”9

The Great Schism and Its Aftermath The great schism between the eastern and western Church and the tragic events for the East that followed (e.g., the crusades and Turkish domination) left no room for discussions about the text of the books of the Old Testament. Moreover, a millennium of Christianity was long enough for the consolidation of local traditions. The issue of the Old Testament text was raised again in the West during the sixteenth century, because of the Protestant Reformation. A century later it reappeared in the East, but under completely different circumstances from those in the past. In the West, the zeal of the reformers for a return to the authentic sources of faith led the Protestant Churches to recognize the Hebrew Old Testament text as the only authoritative one and, therefore, to adopt the narrow Jewish canon. The books not included in this canon but endorsed by the Western Church were labeled “apocrypha,” and the rest “pseudepigrapha.” In spite of this development and notwithstanding the deprecatory label “apocrypha,” Lutheran tradition did not altogether proscribe the reading of these books, which to date are often included in editions of the Bible as addenda. At the opposite end of the spectrum, other protestant traditions, such as the Calvinists and the Puritans of Scotland, took a more rigid stance, something that led to the famous “apocrypha controversy” within the British Bible Society, resulting in the adoption, for a period of time, of the narrow Jewish canon by the Society. The attitude of Protestantism occasioned the definitive solution of the problem of canon in the Roman Catholic Church. The Council of Trent (1545–​1563) in its decree Sacrosancta of 1546 essentially endorsed the ancient Roman tradition by officially accepting the broad Old Testament canon (with the exception of 1 Ezra and 3 Maccabees). The books included in the Jewish canon were labeled “canonical” and the rest were designated “deuterocanonical,” having equal authority with the former. The First Vatican Synod (1869–​1870) ratified this decision, thereby definitively concluding this issue for the Roman Catholic Church. In the Orthodox Church the matter of Old Testament text was raised again, not as an internal problem but as a reflection of the related discussions that were going on in the West. By the end of the sixteenth century, many Orthodox were going to the West to study theology. Western theology, however, at that time, was being shaped to a large degree by the confrontations between Protestants and Catholics,10 and many Orthodox theologians were influenced by that trend. Thus, one may observe the phenomenon of Orthodox theologians turning against Roman Catholicism using arguments that reveal protestant

9 

Ευσέβιος Καισαρείας, Ευαγγελική Απόδειξις V Proem. 36. Cf. N. Matsoukas, “Ecumenical Movement,” in History–​Theology, Thessaloniki 1986, pp. 207ff (in Greek). 10 

The Hebrew Old Testament Text in the Eastern Church    29 influence, or vice versa: they turned against Protestantism using doctrinal positions colored by Catholicism. As representatives of this practice, Metrophanes Critopoulos, patriarch of Alexandria; Cyril Lucaris, patriarch of Constantinople; and Dositheus, patriarch of Jerusalem may be mentioned. Around the end of the sixteenth century, the patriarch of Alexandria, Meletius Pigas, sent to Poland the eminent theologian and clergyman Cyril Lucaris of Crete, in response to the demand of orthodox folk there, to assist them in their struggle against the activities of Jesuits, an event which led to the formation of the first Uniatic Church (Synod of Brest 1596).11 In this struggle Cyril Lucaris requested support from Protestant communities in Poland. Later on, Lucaris, as patriarch of Alexandria (1602–​1622), sent Metrophanes Critopoulos (who later succeeded him as patriarch) to England, Germany, and Switzerland, mainly to study Protestant theology and church policy. Protestant influence on the theology of Metrophanes Critopoulos is apparent in his Confession of Faith,12 which he compiled in 1625 and by which he tried to enlighten Protestants about the content of Orthodox faith and, especially, to ally with them against Roman Catholics. Four years later, in 1629, Cyril Lucaris, as patriarch of Constantinople, published in Geneva his own Confession of Faith, characterized by vehemence against Roman Catholics. In this confession the patriarch adopted clearly Calvinistic positions, a matter that caused alarm among the Orthodox. In reaction to Lucaris, a series of local synods against Protestantism were held.13 In addition to synodical resolutions, Lucaris’s work gave rise to new Confessions of Faith, such as those of Peter Mogila, bishop of Kiev (1638/​42), and Dositheus, patriarch of Jerusalem (1672). Especially in the latter, Roman Catholic influence is evident, as the patriarch defended the doctrine of transubstantiation, the teaching concerning the satisfaction of divine justice, and to some degree the use of indulgences. Moreover, he forbade the reading of the Scriptures by nonprofessionals.14 In the same line were the developments in Russian Orthodoxy, where both the theological views expressed on the text of the Old Testament and the synodical resolutions were fueled by the confrontation of Catholicism with Protestantism. As is known, Christianity was introduced in Russia at the end of the tenth century from Byzantium, but the Bible and the other Church books came from Bulgaria in their Bulgarian translation from Greek. Although there are indications that the Hebrew text of the Old Testament was not unknown in the Slavonic manuscript tradition, at the end of the seventeenth century the Russian Holy Synod declared the translation from the Septuagint as the only true version of the Holy Scripture.15 The same approach was followed by the Russian ecclesiastical authorities until the last edition of the Slavonic Bible (Elisabethan Bible 1751). The rising after the seventeenth century of the issue of the Old Testament text in the East coincides with an era during which many peoples from the East, being Orthodox in 11 

Matsoukas, “Ecumenical Movement,” 205–​206. About the confessions of that era, see John Karmiris, The Dogmatic and Symbolical Monuments of the Orthodox Catholic Church, Vol. 2, Athens, 1953 (in Greek). 13  Synods of Constantinople 1638, 1642, 1672, 1691; Iassi 1642; and Jerusalem 1672. 14  Matsoukas, “Ecumenical Movement,” 208–​209. 15  A. A. Alexeev, “Masoretic Text in Russia,” in S. Crisp & M. Jinbachian (eds.), Text, Theology & Translation: Essays in Honour of Jan de Waard, UBS, 2004, pp. 13–​29 (22). 12 

30   Miltiadis Konstantinou majority, begin, following the effects of the Enlightenment, to formulate a specific perception of national awareness and seek their independence from the Ottoman Empire. The main requirement for this independence from the tyranny of the sultan was, according to the views of the enlighteners, the intellectual awakening of these peoples that could only be achieved through education, but also through the reformation of outdated social institutions such as the Church. Adamantios Koraes, one of the most prominent representatives of the neo-​Hellenic Enlightenment, proposed the introduction of the teaching of the Hebrew language in the schools that would be established after the liberation of the Greek nation from the Ottoman yoke. In 1808 he turned to the British Bible Society, asking them to provide a Bible translation in a language that could be easily understood by the people. The British Bible Society responded immediately to this request by republishing in 1810 a revised version of the 1636 New Testament translation of the monk Maximos Kallioupolitis. However, the work of another representative of the same intellectual movement was much more important. It was the work of the archimandrite Neofytos Vamvas, who worked on one of the most notable and long-​standing translations of the entire Bible from the original texts (Hebrew and Greek) in vernacular Greek a few years after the establishment of the Hellenic kingdom. In parallel with these developments, the subject of an Old Testament text is raised again in Russia with the founding of the Russian Bible Society in 1812. Two scholars, the priest Gerasim Pavsky (1787–​1863), professor of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, and the archimandrite Filaret Drozdov (1783–​1867) translated for the first time the Old Testament from Hebrew into Russian. But even in this case the Holy Synod ordered the most important features of the Slavonic text to be introduced into the new Old Testament translation.16 But the whole effort did not last long, because in 1826 the Russian Bible Society was closed down. Either way, the views that were formulated in that period, even the synodical resolutions, were fueled by the confrontation of Catholicism with Protestantism. They therefore cannot claim to be binding solutions of the problem for the Orthodox Church.

The Issue of Biblical Text in Modern Times With the establishment of the new Greek state, the issue of Scripture was placed on an entirely new footing for Greek Orthodoxy. Therefore, in order to understand the issue, what is needed is a careful analysis of the era and especially of the place of the Orthodox Church within the new Greek state.17 The establishment of the new Greek state (and almost all the Balkan states after the fall of Ottoman Empire) was founded on the principles of the Enlightenment, which stressed the importance of law as the foundation of an ideal state, without, however, placing a similar emphasis on other principles, such as those of justice, equality, and freedom. In this phase the Church, which, due to its struggles during the war

16 

Alexeev, “Masoretic Text in Russia,” 24. For the place of the Orthodox Church within the new Greek state, see Ioannis S. Petrou, Church and Politic in Greece (1750–​1909), Thessaloniki, 1992, pp. 141–​190 (in Greek). 17 

The Hebrew Old Testament Text in the Eastern Church    31 of independence, enjoyed the confidence of the people, was used by the central government as an instrument of instruction for the people. Consequently, the people obeyed the law and the authorities. The Church, which knew from its tradition that all power derives from God, adapted itself easily to this role. Thereby being Orthodox became a feature of Greek identity. Whoever was not Orthodox could not be a true Greek. This situation was intensified by the arrival in Greece of its first king, Otto von Wittelsbach of Bavaria. Otto was crowned as “king of Greece by the grace of God.” The Church now became “The Church of Greece,” separated from the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and its Holy Synod became “the highest ecclesiastical authority of the state,” under obligation to legitimate the authority of the king. Theocratic interpretation of history became the basis for understanding social reality. This situation hardly changed under the next king, George I, when the form of the regime changed to become a democracy governed by a king. George derived his authority from the nation. However, the nation was now described in terms borrowed from the Old Testament as “the chosen people of God” and “holy nation.” Greeks were the people of God, who spoke in their language and had invested them with a special mission, to preserve Orthodoxy “undefiled” and to spread it to other peoples, so that they might also be saved. George I was no longer the “king of Greece” but the “king of the Greeks,” who were now to be understood as the holy nation of God. In this way the Church was identified with the nation and with national aspirations.18 In the support of the Church’s role in Greek society, an important part was played, already from the time of Turkish occupation, by the so-​called missionary movement. The first Protestant missionaries came to Greece during 1810. Initially, they were favorably received. Indeed, ecumenical patriarchs, such as Cyril VI (1814) and Gregory V (1819), displayed a positive attitude to their work and especially toward their efforts to distribute the Scriptures. Unfortunately, these evangelical missionaries had a completely erroneous understanding of the Eastern Churches. They considered the Orthodox Church as a Church long dead, of which nothing remained except her ritual, reminiscent of idolatry more than of Christian worship. Thus, they turned their missionary activity not toward Muslims or “the infidel,” but toward Orthodox Christians. The first Old Testament translation from Hebrew into Modern Greek was published in 1834. The widespread distribution of this translation by Protestants forced the Orthodox Church to be on the defensive, with especially negative consequences for the spread of Scripture in Greece. As a result, the divine inspiration of the Septuagint was now stressed, and one of the tasks of the Holy Synod became the preservation of the New Testament text in the language “which God spoke.” The anxious effort of Constantine Oikonomos to prove, in a voluminous work,19 the divine inspiration of the Septuagint is a typical example. Despite its failure,20 this effort constituted by its massive undertaking a monument to the trend that prevailed. The Church became the self-​declared protector of national traditions, including those of ancient Greece; and because of the identification of the nation with the Church, as stated earlier, every action turned against the Church was now considered antinational. It is noteworthy that from 1911 onward every

18 

Cf. Petrou, Church and Politic, 170–​182. Four Books on the LXX Interpreters of the Old Holy Scripture, Athens, 1844–​1849 (in Greek). 20  Cf. Panagiotis Bratsiotis, Introduction to the Old Testament, Athens, 1937, 2nd ed., 1975, pp. 548ff (in Greek). 19 

32   Miltiadis Konstantinou constitution of Greece proscribed the translation of Scripture and proselytism. Protestants reacted to this situation with aggressive proselytizing toward the Orthodox Church, something that was in any case part of their tradition and their missionary understanding. This resulted in such a wave of suspicion that every activity of Protestants, even today, is regarded by the Orthodox as proselytizing. Perhaps the best proof of the political nature of the confrontation regarding the translation of Scripture may be seen in the incidents that took place in Athens in November of 1901, well known as “Evangeliaka.” The whole matter began with the desire by Queen Olga, who was of Russian descent, to boost the religious sentiment of the people by encouraging the translation of the New Testament into modern Greek, a task that was begun in 1898 and completed within a year by her secretary, Ioulia Soumaki, under the supervision of her uncle, Professor Pandazidis. Interest in the case is centered on the fact that the metropolitan of Athens, Procopius, although aware of the project since its inception, failed to raise any objection to the queen. When, however, she asked for the approval of the Holy Synod for her translation, things changed radically. Newspapers presented the matter as a devilish plan by the Slavs, aimed at creating strife among the people and religious feuds that would help win over Macedonian Greeks by the Bulgarian Exarchate.21 After this fury, the Holy Synod in March 1899 denied the request of the queen for approval. When she asked for arbitration by the Ecumenical Patriarchate, she again received a negative answer. Tempers became frayed and the situation got out of control when later on the newspaper Acropolis began to publish excerpts from another translation, done by Alexandros Pallis in hyperdemotic Greek. Once again, the reaction involved no theological argumentation. In a resolution of students there appeared the phrase “ridicule of the most precious national treasures”; and professors of theology published a memorandum demanding that the publication be stopped. Opposition newspapers, such as Scrip, Kairoi, and Embros, expressed similar sentiments, and by the beginning of October 1901 they accused the supporters of Demotic of being godless, traitors, tools of the Slavs, and recipients of bribes in “Russian rubles.” During the demonstrations and the unrest which followed on November 5, 6, and especially 8 of the year 1901, the argumentation was again purely political. The chief demand—​in addition, of course, to the excommunication of the translators—​was the resignation of the government of Prime Minister Theotokis, with the common slogans of “Down with the Slav woman” and “Long live the heir.” The result of the unrest was eleven dead (three students and eight civilians) and nearly eighty wounded. After the incidents, the chief slogan again was “Down with the government of murderers.”22 It is noteworthy that the target in the entire affair was not the translation itself but the queen. This is evidenced by the fact that, although the translation of Queen Olga had been withdrawn and Pallis’s translation had become the reason for the incidents, nevertheless the ire of the demonstrators was turned exclusively against the queen.23 The encyclical of the Holy Synod, however, in which the translations of the Gospel were deplored, is especially interesting. Here too, the absence of theological argumentation is noteworthy. The encyclical begins24 by declaring that from the time when the Gospel was 21 

History of the Greek Nation (Ekdotiki Athinon), vol. 14, p. 175 (in Greek). History of the Greek Nation, 174–​177. 23  History of the Greek Nation, 408. 24  Nr. 3171/​7.11.1901. 22 

The Hebrew Old Testament Text in the Eastern Church    33 written until the middle of the seventeenth century no one had ever thought to translate it. The document then refers to the translation of 1629, regarded as the work of a Dutch Calvinist priest, and to its failure. The Holy Synod boasted that the Greek Church was the only Church that was privileged to be in possession of the original text. It viewed the newer translations as being in a language “terribly vulgar, which shamefully and scandalously defaces the modest beauty of the divinely inspired original text.” The sole theological reason cited against translating the Gospel was the danger of perverting the original meaning, which had been developed and formulated into dogmas by the ecumenical synods. For the understanding of the Gospel the study of the interpretations of the Fathers was recommended. Nevertheless, the practical but very real problem of how to gain access to the works of the Fathers and how to understand them does not appear to have preoccupied the Holy Synod, nor was it demonstrated just how a Gospel translation might pervert the doctrines formulated by ecumenical synods. The encyclical continued by referring to the practice of the Church, up to that time, of not translating Scripture, even during the period of Turkish domination, when linguistic barriers created particular difficulties for the understanding of the original. The main argument of the Synod was that, now “that our national language is advanced, and slowly but surely and happily is on the course of recapturing its ancient acme and magnificence,” there was no need for a translation. Thus, the encyclical concluded with disapproval and condemnation of every translation. This encyclical, although making no reference to the translation of the Old Testament, has nonetheless great importance for the issue examined here, since it verifies most strikingly the notion of the Church’s hierarchy of that time as being defenders of national tradition and of the Greek language. The situation changed in Russia under the rule of Alexander the II at the initiative of Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow. The so-​called Synodical Version of the Bible was first published in 1876. The Old Testament translation into Russian was based on the Masoretic text, but it absorbed all the eclecticism of the Slavonic version, combining the Greek and Hebrew original.25

Conclusion From the whole study of the matter one may draw the conclusion that the options and practices of the recent past cannot serve as a tool for solving the problem of the place of the original Old Testament text in the Orthodox Church. But neither should the practice of the ancient Church be used as a basis for the solution of the problem, since, as has been underscored repeatedly, the understanding of Scripture in more recent times differs radically from that of the first Christian millennium. A survey of contemporary Orthodox writings validates this view. When reference is made to the ecumenical and free spirit of Orthodoxy, the translation work of Cyril and Methodius is praised at the same time as the West is condemned because of its doctrine concerning sacred languages. On the other

25 Alexeev, “Masoretic Text in Russia,” 26. For the developments in Romanian Orthodoxy, see Alexandru Mihãilã, “The Septuagint and the Masoretic Text in the Orthodox Church(es),” RES 10 (1/​ 2018):30–​60.

34   Miltiadis Konstantinou hand, when modern Scripture translations are mentioned, the role of the Church in the preservation of the Greek language, the importance of the text of the Septuagint, and the role of missionaries are emphasized. It is obvious, therefore, that today there is a need for a completely new and sober handling of the problem with purely scientific criteria, but also with a sense of responsibility. Such an approach cannot disregard the literary, religious, and theological value of the Septuagint. Its literary value has to do with the fact that it preserves a text, based on a Hebrew parent text that is more ancient by many centuries than the Masoretic text, the latter beginning to be systematized after the fifth century and completed as late as the fourteenth century. This fact offers an important comparative advantage to the Septuagint, the testimony of which may be valuable as much for the critical restoration of the Masoretic text as for the clarification of its difficult passages. The religious significance of the Septuagint, however, should not be overlooked either, provided it is regarded as the Holy Bible of the Church rather than a literary production of antiquity. From this point of view it is indisputable that the Septuagint constituted the Bible of the undivided Church, the text on which the apostles and the church fathers depended, in order to present their theology, the text which facilitated beyond any other the spread of Christianity in the Greco-​Roman world, the text which assumed the role of the original for a multitude of other ecclesiastical translations and became the source of inspiration for the hymnography and iconography of the Church. But also, as a witness of a particular hermeneutic approach, which was dominant at the time of Christianity’s emergence, the Septuagint has a special importance, from a theological point of view, for the understanding of the New Testament. All the foregoing combine to make the Septuagint text invaluable for the theological research and the religious consciousness of the Orthodox Christians, without in any way justifying a theological or literary underestimation of the original Hebrew. Moreover, in addition to the value the Septuagint may have, the possibility of an important divergence of its text from the original due to likely copying errors or translation tendencies, should not be, at any event, overlooked. Therefore, to the extent that, as has been argued, nothing today compels the Orthodox Church to favor a text of a particular form, it must embrace as its own heritage both texts, the Hebrew and the Septuagint, encouraging their study and research. The re-​establishment of the Russian Bible Society in the 1990s and the transformation in 1992 of the British and Foreign Bible Society Office that operated in Greece, to an independent national Bible Society, under the name “Hellenic Bible Society,” contributed significantly to the realization of the hierarchies of local Churches this need.26

References Alexeev, A. A. “Masoretic Text in Russia.” In S. Crisp & M. Jinbachian (eds.), Text, Theology & Translation, Essays in Honour of Jan de Waard. UBS, 2004, pp. 13–​29. Bratsiotis, Panagiotis. Introduction to the Old Testament. Athens, 1937, 2nd ed., 1975 (in Greek).

26  In 1997 the Hellenic Bible Society published a translation of the Old Testament based on the Hebrew and Greek Texts with the blessing and approval of the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece.

The Hebrew Old Testament Text in the Eastern Church    35 Eusebius of Caesarea. Ευαγγελική Απόδειξις V Proem. de Lange, Nicholas. “The Greek Bible Translations of the Byzantine Jews.” In Paul Magdalino and Robert Nelson (eds.), The Old Testament in Byzantium. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2010, pp. 39–​54 (42ff). History of the Greek Nation (Ekdotiki Athinon). Vol. 14, 1969 (in Greek). Karmiris, John. The Dogmatic and Symbolical Monuments of the Orthodox Catholic Church. Vol. II. Athens, 1953 (in Greek). Library of Greek Fathers and Ecclesiastical Writers (ΒΕΠΕΣ), vol. 66. Apostoliki Diakonia of the Church of Greece, Athens, 1965, p. 130 (in Greek). Matsoukas, N. “Ecumenical Movement.” In History—​Theology, P. Pournaras /​Thessaloniki, Greece, 1986, pp. 207ff (in Greek). Migne, Patrologia Greca: 56,178; 87,1817–​2718, 2005–​2008A; 101,816ABC. 1865. Oikonomos, Elias. “The Hebrew Language and the Greek Fathers.” Bulletin of Biblical Studies, n.s., 13 (Jan–​Jun. 1994): 29–​47 (in Greek). Petrou, Ioannis S. Church and Politic in Greece (1750–​1909). Thessaloniki, 1992 (in Greek).

Chapter 2

The Old Gree k, H e brew, and Other T e xt W i tnesses i n E ast e rn Ort hod oxy Alexandru Mihăilă Textual Diversity in the Early Church Written in Greek, the books of the New Testament quoted the Scripture (Old Testament) mostly according to the Greek translation, the Septuagint. But in some cases, especially in Matthew and Paul’s epistles, where the messianic or theological sense is important, they quoted the reading of the Hebrew text via Proto-​Theodotion (Tov 2015, 459–​460). In doing so, the New Testament prevented the canonization of one version of the Old Testament, be it the Septuagint or another text. The Bryennios list (ca. AD 150) attests to a Judeo-​Christian community that used the Hebrew and/​or Aramaic titles for the biblical books. This Palestinian community remains a standard for the entire Church, this explaining why Melito of Sardis traveled to Judea to check the list of the books that make up the Scripture (Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History 4.26.13). Justin Martyr (d. 165) is the first Christian writer who questioned the authority of the Hebrew text preserved in the synagogue and favored the Septuagint disseminated by the Church. Discussing this problem with Trypho the Jew, Justin uses both versions for passages where the differences might contribute to a better understanding of the text: “keep whatever interpretation of the psalm pleases you” (Dialogue with Trypho 124.4; cf. 124.2–​3). But elsewhere he accused the Rabbis for deleting messianic passages from the Hebrew Scriptures, which the Septuagint preserved: “I would also have you know that from the version composed by those elders at the court of Ptolemy [i.e., the Septuagint], they [the Rabbis] have deleted entire passages in which it is clearly indicated that the crucified one was foretold as God and man, and as about to suffer death on the cross” (71.2). Justin mentions examples of passages allegedly omitted by the Jewish teachers, such as the law of the Passover from

The Old Greek, Hebrew, and Other Text Witnesses    37 Esdras, a reference to the sacrificial lamb from Jeremiah 11, a text about Lord’s descending to the dead, the words “from the wood” of Psalm 96, and the prophecy from Gen 49.10 (72–​73; 120.4). A more sophisticated view is upheld by Origen (d. 254), who put huge effort into textual criticism. In his work, Hexapla, he arranged the biblical versions in six columns side by side: Hebrew text, Greek transliteration of the Hebrew, and versions of Aquila, Symmachus, Septuagint, and finally Theodotion. For the book of Psalms he added two more versions, resulting in Oktapla. The versions’ order attests to the importance of the Hebrew text placed in pole position. The Greek versions of Aquila (according to tradition, a Jewish proselyte) and Symmachus (a Samaritan) precede the Septuagint, because they are literal translations closer to the Hebrew text, while Theodotion succeeds the Septuagint, because it has a more elegant style and sometimes supplements the latter. Origen explained his whole project as follows: With the help of God’s grace I have tried to remedy the inconsistencies in the copies of the Old Testament on the basis of the other versions. When I was uncertain of the Septuagint reading because the various copies did not tally, I settled the issue by consulting the other versions and retaining what was in agreement with them. Some passages did not appear in the Hebrew one; these I marked with an obelus as I did not dare to leave them out altogether. Other passages I marked with an asterisk to show that they were not in the Septuagint but that I had added them from the other versions in agreement with the Hebrew text. (Commentary on Matthew 15.14)

Origen gave some examples of differences between the Hebrew and the Greek text in the book of Esther, Job, and Jeremiah, and even in Genesis and Exodus (Ep. to Africanus 5[3]‌–​7). Origen is convinced that the Providence supplied the Christian Church with trustworthy Scriptures and the Christians do not have to plead for new copies from the Jews (Ep. to Africanus 8). Origen, like Justin Martyr, regards the Septuagint as a translation of the extant Hebrew text, not as a different version (Gallagher 2012, 181). But while Justin interpreted the differences as a result of text distortion by the Jews, for Origen the Septuagint itself might be a corrupted text that could be restored with the help of the Hebrew text and other Greek versions, especially Theodotion. Origen introduced what Kamesar termed an “exegetical maximalism,” taking into consideration beside the Septuagint the Hebrew text and other Greek versions when relevant for Christian exegesis. For this reason a multitextual Scripture was adopted by the church fathers in their biblical commentaries: Basil of Caesarea (Ennaration on prophet Isaiah), Gregory of Nyssa (Apology on Hexaemeron), John Chrysostom (Fragments in Job and in Jeremiah) explicitly quoted from Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion. More extended use is found in the works of bible commentators such as Origen, Eusebius of Caesarea (Commentaries on Isaiah and on Psalms) and Theodoret of Cyrus (Commentaries on Isaiah and Interpretation of Psalms), although they have not been declared to be saints by the Orthodox. The church fathers assumed divine inspiration for the Septuagint, but on the other hand they understood the process of translation as a source of unclarities. Gregory of Nyssa answers the accusation of incoherence raised against the biblical text, by stating, “if there is some incoherence in the passage, let it be reckoned to the account of those who translated the Hebrew tongue into Greek” (Homilies on the Song of Songs 2). John Chrysostom underlines

38   Alexandru Mihăilă the same idea: “whenever a language is rendered into another language, it involves great difficulty” and therefore “it is not possible to transfer the clarity naturally contained in the words when converted to another language” (Homilies on the Obscurity of the Prophecies 2). Due to cultural barriers, the Hebrew text was generally beyond reach for biblical commentaries. Apart from Origen, there are two church fathers who knew Hebrew: Epiphanius of Salamis and Jerome. Epiphanius (d. 403) could make full use of Origen’s Oktapla and quoted explicitly the Hebrew text (Panarion 65.4.5–​7). Jerome (d. 420) translated the Old Testament from the Septuagint first (AD 386–​389), convinced of Graeca veritas, but then (AD 390–​405) from the Hebrew text, defending the ultimate Hebraica veritas in his new translation, the Vulgate. Under the pressure of Itala tradition, he prepared two versions for the book of Psalms: one from the Greek (juxta Septuaginta) and one from the Hebrew (juxta Hebraicum). When there are different lections, Jerome recommended to place better faith in the Hebrew text (Prologue to Samuel and Kings 3), arguing that the Apostles and the Evangelists had quoted the Hebrew text and giving some examples of passages not found in the Septuagint (Prologue to the Pentateuch 2). In a letter to Jerome dated 384–​385, Augustine defends the “preeminent authority” of the Septuagint (Ep. 28.2). In 403 Augustine sent another letter (Ep. 71), in which he expressed his concern regarding Jerome’s work of translating the Hebrew text, not the Greek one. In 405 Jerome answered with irony that Augustine was surely reading a Septuagint not “in the original form as it was produced by the Seventy, but in an edition corrected or corrupted by Origen.” Jerome added, “you would be forced to condemn all church book collections for only one or two copies can be found which do not contain these passages” added from the Hebrew by Origen (Ep. 112.19–​20). This interesting dialogue proves the textual interferences and that in the fourth century there no was longer a “pure” Septuagint. For example, Theodotion’s version was preferred for the book of Daniel instead of the Septuagint (Jerome, Prologue to Daniel; Apology against Rufinus 2.33). Multiple factors contributed to the spread of the ecclesiastic expanded text of the Septuagint, one of them being the political interest of the new Christian emperors. Constantine the Great ordered Eusebius to prepare fifty leather codices of the Scripture for use in churches in the new capital Constantinople (Vita Constantini 4.36–​37). In 553 (Novella 146) Emperor Justinian permitted Aquila’s version to be read in the synagogue, suggesting the Septuagint, with all its subvariants, Hebrew influences, and canonical problems, was the “common” old Scripture, but without excluding the other versions. This exegetical maximalism was based on exegetical practicality (Seleznev 2019, 196), and we may conclude with Konstantinou that “during the first millennium, the Church did not tie itself to a specific textual tradition of the Old Testament, nor did it ever reject the original Hebrew text, but used the Septuagint text only for purely practical reasons” (2012, 183).

The Old Greek and Slavonic Bibles In the eighth and ninth centuries, as a result of liturgical reform endorsed by Stoudios Monastery in Constantinople, the Church limited access to the Bible through lectionaries. The Old Testament was no longer read continuously (lectio continua), but only in appointed readings in the new lectionary, the Prophetologion. After the Ottoman conquest,

The Old Greek, Hebrew, and Other Text Witnesses    39 the Prophetologion disappeared as an independent book, being absorbed into other liturgical books (Menaia, Triodion, and Pentekostarion). The Prophetologion propagated the ecclesiastical text of the Septuagint, with the asterisked material for the book of Job (e.g., Job 42.16–​17, read during the Vespers of the Great and Holy Friday) and Theodotion’s version for the book of Daniel. In the book of the Judges, it has a composite text, with readings found in Vaticanus and Alexandrinus (Mihăilă 2018, 47–​51). A real challenge for the Orthodox churches arose with the printing press and the Reformation (Kilpatrick 2014). Now for the first time, refuting Johannes Ludovicus de Vives’s commentary on Augustine’s De Civitate Dei (Basel, 1522) in which the inspiration of the Septuagint was questioned, St. Maksim the Greek (d. 1556) praised the Septuagint and condemned the Vulgate as relying on the Jewish Scripture (Seleznev 2019, 198).

The Slavonic Bible Although the Septuagint is much older than the Slavonic Bible, it was the latter that caused the first controversy over the textual form. The initiative of translating the Bible for the Slavs belonged to Sts. Cyrill and Methodius, two brothers from Thessalonica, who in the ninth century were sent as missionaries to Moravia. So the first translations addressed the liturgical needs, especially the lections from the Gospels and the Apostle epistles. But the whole Bible was translated into Church Slavonic much later, in 1499, under archbishop Gennady Gonozov of Novgorod, as a reaction against Judaizers, who proposed for the Psalms variants influenced by the Hebrew text (Thomson 1998, 655–​ 665). Despite this, the unpublished Gennady’s Bible did have massive influences from the Vulgate (some biblical books translated for the first time from Latin) and the Hebrew text (e.g., the form of the book of Esther), marking a new step in textual eclecticism (Desnitsky 2005, 246). The first edition of the Slavonic Bible appeared in 1581, in Ostrog, Ruthenia, which as part of the Polish-​Lithuanian Commonwealth was a region of confluence between Orthodoxy and Catholicism. In 1577 the Orthodox prince Konstantin Ostrogski founded an academic school in Ostrog and wanted to have an Orthodox Slavonic Bible, printed in more than 1,000 copies with the support of some Greek scholars (Eustatios Natanael from Crete and Dionyssos Rhallis Paleologue). It preserved numerous influences from the Vulgate, but also revisions of the Judaizers, especially in the Pentateuch. The Judaizers’ corrections were maintained in the following edition, the Moscow Bible of 1663, a revised version of the Ostrog Bible (Thomson 1998, 671–​692). Between 1714–​1720 a commission appointed by Tsar Peter the Great revised the Bible, using the Codex Alexandrinus from the London polyglot edition of 1657. The Holy Synod accepted most of the emendations in 1723, but then the revision met strong resistance and charges of sympathizing with Protestantism. The Holy Synod decided to introduce the revisions only as marginal notes, but in 1741 it decided to restart the project from scratch. In 1744, the new empress Elisabeth urged Church leaders and professors of the Theological Academy in Kiev to complete the revision. According to the principles outlined by the Holy Synod in 1745, if the revision finds support in at least a single Greek version, it should be accepted. Under imperial pressure, the work was finished in 1751, the so-​called Elisabethan Bible (with a second edition in 1756) being the current standard Slavonic Bible (Thomson

40   Alexandru Mihăilă 1998, 692–​7 12). Despite various revisions, it still has a book translated from the Latin Vulgate (4 Ezdra), but also numerous influences from Latin and Hebrew.

The Old Greek Bible Due to Ottoman rule, the Greek Church was unable to print Christian books on its territory. Therefore Venice became a suitable place for Orthodox printings. The first Greek Bible printed by the Orthodox was the Bible of 1687, published by Nikolaos Glykys (or Glykos), a Greek from Ioannina, who in 1670 founded a printing house in Venice. The Bible was sponsored by the Wallachian voivode Șerban Cantacuzino, a descendant of a noble Byzantine family, who aimed for Constantinople’s throne once the Turks would be defeated. The printing of the Bible was not a priority (it was printing no. 67, after many other liturgical books) and the text reproduced the Bible of Frankfurt (1597), published by a Huguenot family from France. The text is a “patched-​up Septuagint,” with numerous insertions from the Vulgate (a reminiscence of the Complutensian Polyglot from 1514–​1517), for example, in the book of Jeremiah. In 1821 the Russian Bible Society published in Moscow the first Greek Bible, funded by the Zosimas brothers and with the blessing of the Church. The Old Testament text followed the Codex Alexandrinus edited by Grabe (Oxford, 1707–​1720), even adopting his additions in smaller type. The Moscow Bible was reprinted in Athens in 1843–​1850 with the financial support of the Society Promoting Christian Knowledge and the blessing of the Greek Holy Synod, then in 1892 (Kalantzakis 2006, 207–​208). In 1928 the Zoi theological brotherhood published with the blessing of the Church a new edition of the Septuagint following C. Tischendorf ’s critical text (Leipzig, 7th ed. 1850). In 1939 Zoi published in Athens a new Septuagint with Rahlfs’s critical text (1935), in which Panayotis Bratsiotis, professor of Old Testament studies, replaced some biblical passages with the readings taken from liturgical books (Psalter and the former Prophetologion) (Kalantzakis 2006, 208–​209). The Zoi editions marked the shift from the Codex Alexandrinus to the preeminence of the Codex Vaticanus. The edition was reprinted in 1950, and since 1997 has been published by the official publishing house of the Church in Greece, Apostoliki Diakonia. In the preface, Metropolitan Petros (Daktylidis) of Chrystoupolis (d. 2012), head of the Greek Bible Society, explains the importance of the Septuagint: “This text has been accepted by the conscience of the ecclesiastical body and has been the basis for theological discussions,” enjoying “the repeated approval of the Church of Greece and the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople,” having “divine authority and prestige as the Bible of the indivisible Church of the first eight centuries” and remaining “the authentic text by which the official translations of the Old Testament of the other sister Orthodox Churches were made.”

The National Bibles The seventeenth to nineteenth centuries were for the Orthodox churches the time of shaping their national identity, reflected also in church life. The biblical text in Old Greek and Slavonic became less and less understandable for lay people. The need to translate the

The Old Greek, Hebrew, and Other Text Witnesses    41 Bible into vernacular languages was a good opportunity to discuss the role of the Bible versions for the Orthodox churches.

Bible Translation into Modern Greek The first biblical translations into Modern Greek (by the monk Ioannikios Kartanos) were begun in the sixteenth century (Venice, 1536). Almost a century later, the ecumenical patriarch Cyril Loukaris encouraged the archimandrite Maximos Kallioupoli to translate the New Testament. The translation was published in Geneva in 1638 and met fierce opposition. Loukaris’s confession of faith (1629) had been condemned as Calvinist and Patriarch Parthenios II forbade the circulation of the Scripture in vernacular (Argyriou 1990, 149–​158). In 1700 Patriarch Kalinikos answered the Wallachian voivode Constantin Brâncoveanu, stating, “it is a law of the Church” that no one touches the Scripture; otherwise, once translated, it becomes “unimportant and without grace” (Livanios 2014, 107–​ 108). A revision of Kallioupoli’s translation by the archimandrite Seraphim of Mitylenes, issued in 1703 in London, was condemned by the patriarch Gabriel III in 1704 as “superfluous and unprofitable” (Vaporis 1994, 11). All this secured the untouchable position of the Scripture in Old Greek. St. Nicodemus the Hagiorite (d. 1809) compiled and commented on a collection of canons titled The Rudder (Pedalion), printed in Leipzig in 1800, with the ecclesiastical endorsement from the Synod of Constantinople in 1791. For the eighty-​fifth apostolic canon, Nicodemus explained the relation between Bible versions. The Septuagint is the most ancient one, it has been “judged by the Church to be genuine and authoritative” and the most trustworthy. “The Jews corrupted the Hebrew text of the Old Testament,” while “the Seventy interpreted the Scripture from an old and uncorrupted copy of the Hebrew text,” rendering it more according to the meaning and less according to the letter. The translations of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, made by apostates, “were never regarded as authoritative and were never sanctioned by the Church,” because they left the messianic passages unclear. Nevertheless, they are not completely useless and can help to clarify meaning. Because the book of Daniel in the Septuagint is “obscure,” the Church accepted Theodotion here. Other versions, such as the Syriac, the Arabic, and the Aramaic (the Targums), are useful for the comprehension of the Scriptures. The Syriac version is the most ancient and closest to the Hebrew, Itala is also ancient and important, while the Vulgate translated by Jerome contains many errors and text absent in the Hebrew original. Nicodemus concludes, “So who can prefer any other version to this God-​inspired version of the Seventy? What if it does differ in some parts to some extent from the Hebrew originals?” Adamantios Korais corresponded in 1808 with the British Bible Society, advocating for a modern Greek translation from the Hebrew. Appointed by the Society, Neophytos Vamvas, archimandrite and professor at the Ionian Academy in Corfu and then at the National University of Athens, started such a translation into Katharevousa in 1831. Patriarch Gregorios VI condemned it repeatedly in two synodal letters (1836 and 1839), but Vamvas completed his translation in 1850 (Vaporis 1994, 56–​84). As a reaction, the priest and erudite scholar Konstantinos Oikonomos (d. 1857) wrote a monograph in four volumes in 1844–​1849, defending the superiority of the Septuagint. Septuagint is inspired and equivalent to the Hebrew original now lost (Dafni 2010, 273).

42   Alexandru Mihăilă He speaks of the corruption of the Hebrew text, while the Septuagint is “authentic and inspired according to the letter and according to the sense.” He listed the Septuagint and New Testament quotations and out of 238 cases he identified only three or four that are at odds with the former. Oikonomos’s works, though obsolete in comparison with contemporary Western scholarship, exerted an enormous influence in the Orthodox world. The Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs from 1848 (§21) states, referring without any doubt to the Septuagint, “Our Church holds the infallible and genuine deposit of the Holy Scriptures, of the Old Testament a true and perfect version, of the New the divine original itself.” After the riots known as Evangelika, which were caused by New Testament translations into demotic Greek and resulted in the fall of the government (Delicostopoulos 1998, 301–​ 302), starting with the Constitution of 1911 and until 1975, any translation of the Scripture in vernacular was forbidden. In this way, the Septuagint acquired a sacrosanct position in the Church of Greece.

Bible Translation into Russian In 1812 in St. Petersburg, the British and Foreign Bible Society, founded in 1804, opened its first branch in an Orthodox country, the Russian Bible Society, which enjoyed also the financial support of Tsar Aleksandr I. In 1816 an imperial decree initiated the translation of the Scripture in Russian. The Holy Synod delegated a commission that addressed the theological academies of St. Petersburg, Moscow, and Kiev. Archimandrite Filaret (Drozdov) (d. 1867, declared saint in 1994), rector of the St. Petersburg theological academy and future metropolitan of Moscow, supervised the work. In 1822 the archpriest Gerasim Pavskii of Kazan cathedral, a talented Hebraist and professor at the St. Petersburg academy, translated the Psalter from Hebrew, but with Septuagint insertions (for example, Psalm 151). The historical books from Genesis to Ruth were printed (1824–​ 1825), but were not put into circulation (Batalden 2013, 56–​74). After the tsar’s death, because of opposition from the traditionalists who defended the Slavonic text, the society was closed down. The next tsar, Nikolai II, permitted only the dissemination of the Slavonic Bible. Two further cases of translations based on Hebrew ended up with scandals (Batalden 2013, 96–​124). Pavskii completed an Old Testament translation that circulated among the students in 1838–​1841. The ecclesiastical authorities confiscated and destroyed the copies, and Pavskii was questioned by Metropolitan Filaret himself. In the discussion, metropolitan Filaret argued that the translation must have additional dogmatic notes to interpret the messianic prophecies, but Pavskii wanted a merely philological translation. In fact, Pavskii’s Psalter of 1822, which didn’t have such messianic explanations, bore Filaret’s signature on the preface. The second case was the archimandrite Makarii Glukharev (d. 1847, declared saint in 2000), a missionary for the Altai pagan population. During the same period, he translated the Old Testament, using the French translation with commentary of the reformed Swiss pastor Osterwald (1724), a monumental commentary of the theologian and orientalist E. F. K. Rosenmüller (1788–​1835), and even Pavskii’s clandestine translation. Metropolitan Filaret advised him that it was not the moment for such a translation, and the Holy Synod punished Makarii by a short exile.

The Old Greek, Hebrew, and Other Text Witnesses    43 In 1844–​1845 the ober-​procuror Nikolai Protasov tried to impose the Slavonic text based on the Septuagint as inviolable. Metropolitan Filaret answered in 1845 with an essay titled “Concerning the Dogmatic Value and Preserving Function of the Greek Septuagint and the Slavonic Translation of Holy Scripture,” published only in 1858. In fact it was the new emperor, Aleksandr II, who changed the situation. In 1856 by imperial decree the translation work was resumed. Initially Filaret’s view was just a minority in the synod, with fierce opposition from the metropolitan Filaret (Amfiteatrov) of Kiev, who sent him a letter defending the traditional Slavonic Bible. Filaret Amfiteatrov writes that the Jews, “out of hatred of Christianity, have zealously tampered with the Hebrew text, especially in the prophetic books,” while “from the first centuries our Mother, the Eastern-​Greek Church, has constantly recognized the translation of the Seventy, together with the original text of the New Testament, as sacred and inviolable.” But in 1857 Filaret Amfiteatrov died, so Filaret Drozdov had a clear way. Filaret Drozdov’s essay became the very programmatic document for translating. He writes, “the text of the Seventy interpreters should have a dogmatic dignity, in some cases equaling the original and even surpassing the Hebrew text.” On the other hand, “justice, usefulness and necessity” require that the Hebrew text, in respect of dogmatic dignity too, might be taken into consideration when interpreting the sacred Scripture, even if there are some distorted well-​known passages. In 1858 commissions were established with the aid of the theological academies in St. Petersburg, Moscow, and Kiev, with participation of professors such as Evgraf Loviagin (instructor at the department of Greek), Moisei Golubev (professor of biblical exegesis), and, from 1860, the metropolitan Isidor Nikolski of Novgorod and St. Petersburg, who led the work after Filaret’s death in 1867. For the Old Testament, the commission included Daniil Khvolson (a Jew converted to Orthodoxy, professor of Hebrew and Semitic languages from the Faculty of Oriental Studies in St. Petersburg) and, after Golubev’s death, Pavel Savvaitov (professor of patristics and hermeneutics at the theological academy of St. Petersburg). The Old Testament was published in four volumes between 1868 and 1875 (Batalden 2013, 125–​182). The translation followed the Leipzig Polyglot, Biblia sacra quadrilingvia Veteris Testamenti, published by Christianus Reineccius in 1750 (Snigirev 2017, 540), which was dependent on the Antwerp Polyglot (1569–​1572), offering a mixed Hebrew text out of three recensions: Gershom Soncino’s Bible (Brescia, 1494), Hebrew text of the Complutensian Polyglot (Alcala, 1512) and Ben Hayyim’s second Rabbinic Bible (Venice, 1524–​1525) (Mulder 1988, 124). The Synodal Bible was published as a single volume in 1876, being the common Bible in Russian until today. Generally the translation reflects the Hebrew text, with Septuagint additions marked in brackets, although not in a consistent way (sometimes the explanations are in brackets too). After 1876, the criticism didn’t cease. St. Theophan the Recluse (d. 1894), former bishop of Vladimir and Suzdal, argued in a series of articles (Kashirina 2014) that “the pure revealed word is contained in the Old Testament translation of the Seventy.” He admitted that sometimes, as done by John Chrysostom, the Hebrew text might be referred “as an accessory to the understanding of the true word of God,” but generally the Church “was not and is not acquainted with the Hebrew Bible.” Pavel Ivanovich Gorsky-​Platonov, professor of Hebrew at the Theological Academy of Moscow, wrote an academic rejoinder in which he contended that the differences between the Hebrew text and the Septuagint amounted to 5 percent, refuting the argument against

44   Alexandru Mihăilă the validity of the former. Besides, the Church didn’t canonize the Septuagint as the only “authentic revelation of the Old Testament.” St. Theophan answered, reminding of metropolitan Filaret and Oikonomos, that the only “legitimate” and “authentic” version is the Septuagint, while the Hebrew text is “corrupt.” The new Russian Bible sometimes followed the Septuagint against the Hebrew text (e.g., Psalm 21.17), but sometimes the Hebrew text against the Slavonic Bible and the Septuagint (e.g., Gen 2.2). Consequently, the Synodal Bible is a combination of the two, being deprived of “the significance of dogmatic authority.” St. Theophan recommended primarily the Slavonic Bible with resort to the Synodal Bible only for reading, education, and instruction, it being in no way a Bible with “dogmatic authority.” This respect shown to the Slavonic Bible and ultimately to the Septuagint led to concurrent translations competing with the Synodal Bible. In 1869–​1875 in Kiev, Bishop Porfiry (Uspensky) translated from the 1821 Moscow editions of the Septuagint the books of Genesis, Proverbs (partially), Song of Songs, 1–​4 Maccabees, and the Old Testament festal readings, and from a Jerusalem Greek Psalter of 862 the Psalms (reprinted in St. Petersburg in 1893 and 1906). Between 1908 and 1917 in Kazan, professor Pavel A. Yungerov translated from the Septuagint the prophetical and the poetical books (Psalter in 1915) and partially the book of Genesis. This traditional direction is represented nowadays by the hieromonk Amvrosii Timrot’s Psalter (1999) and even by the Psalter translated from Slavonic (and partly from Greek) by E. N. Birukovа and I. N. Birukov between 1975 and 1985 and published in 2011.

Bible Translation into Romanian After manuscripts of Romanian Psalters circulated in the sixteenth century, Deacon Coresi published the Psalter (Brașov, 1570) translated from Slavonic. In Bălgrad (Alba Iulia) at the printing house of the Calvinist prince of Transylvania, metropolitan Simion Ștefan published in 1651 the Psalter translated from Sante Pagnini’s Latin Bible (Lyon, 1528) (Pavel 2013, 31). The Calvinist influence is evident in the postface addressed to the readers, where the importance of the Hebrew original is praised as a source of living water. The first Old Testament translation from Greek was accomplished by the spatharios Nicolae Milescu in Constantinople (1661–​1664) from the Frankfurt Bible (1597), which offered as already mentioned a Septuagint edition with many insertions from Latin. Revised by the metropolitan Dosoftei of Moldavia and by Greceanu brothers, Milescu’s translation was afterward integrated into the first complete Romanian Bible (Bucharest, 1688), sponsored by the Wallachian voivode Șerban Cantacuzino, the same one who had published an year before in Venice the first Orthodox Greek Bible (Conțac 2011, 176–​177). Unfortunately the Bucharest Bible didn’t circulate in the ecclesiastical milieu, being an isolated achievement. In 1795 the Greek-​Catholics from Blaj substantially revised the Bucharest Bible and this revision was published even by the Orthodox: in St. Petersburg (1819) by the Russian Bible Society, in Buzău (1854–​1854) by Bishop Filotei, and in Sibiu (1856–​1858) by Metropolitan Andrei Șaguna for the Romanians in the Austrian Empire. With minor revisions at the hand of the primate metropolitan Athanase Mironescu, it was finally published as the first Synodal Bible (Bucharest, 1914). With the second Synodal Bible (1936) another kind of textual tradition began. The translators, the archimandrite (later patriarch) Nicodim and priests Gala Galaction and

The Old Greek, Hebrew, and Other Text Witnesses    45 Vasile Radu, mixed the Hebrew text with the Septuagint. The model was without any doubt the Russian Synodal Bible, whose influences might be found (e.g., in Gen 15.1, where an explanatory parenthesis is included). This eclectic text has survived with minor changes through all further synodal editions until present day. A third textual variety is represented by King Carol II’s Bible of 1938, translated by the priests Gala Galaction and Vasile Radu from Hebrew. But this translation appeared in the printing house of King Carol’s foundation and not in the ecclesiastical printing house as the Synodal Bible. In 2001, Bishop (then Metropolitan) Bartolomeu Anania of Cluj rejoined the Septuagint tradition with a new Bible. It was translated from Greek, but in the manner of the first Synodal Bible (1914), representing in fact a Septuagint with many external influences. In 2018 the monks Petru and Pavel of Mount Athos translated the Psalter from the Greek Apostoliki Diakonia edition (in its turn a reprint of Venice Psalter, 1893).

Bible Translation into Other Slavic Languages The first translations in Bulgarian were initiated by the American and British Bible Societies. For the Old Testament, the teacher Konstantin Fotinov worked between 1854 and 1858 from Vamvas’s translation in Katharevousa (Psalms arranged according to the Septuagint) and the missionary Elias Riggs corrected against the Hebrew and the Greek text. After Fotinov’s death, the translation was similarly resumed by Hristodul Kostovich and the Old Testament was printed in three volumes in Constantinople (1860–​1864) and the whole Bible in 1871 (Stoykov 2017; Dimitrov 2007). The efforts for a Bulgarian Synodal Bible, published in 1925, started in 1898, with the metropolitan Kliment of Tarnovo and professors V. Zlatarski, L. Miletich, and B. Tsonev translating from Slavonic (Elisabethan Bible) (Markovski 1926–​1927). For the Serbians, between 1857 and 1867 in Novi Sad, Bishop Platon Atanacković translated the Old Testament from Slavonic. A disciple of Vuk Karadžić, who modernized the Serbian language and translated the New Testament, Đura Daničić, translated the Psalter in 1864 and the entire Old Testament in 1867, using the literal Latin Bible of Immanuel Tremellius and Fransiscus Junius (1580–​1590) (Kuzmič 2004, 265). The entire Bible was printed in the Cyrillic alphabet in Belgrade in 1868 and in the Latin alphabet in Pest (Naumow 2016). As a reaction from the Orthodox theological scholars, in the journal Theological Messenger a translation was initiated by professors from the Theological Seminary of Karlovac: Bishop Irinej Ćirić translated the books of Zechariah (1908) and Amos (1913). After the fall of communism, Metropolitan Amfilohije Radović and Bishop Atanasije Jevtić translated the deuterocanonical books, so the entire Bible in Serbian appeared in 2010, including 4 Maccabees as an appendix.

Modern Academic Translations It is interesting that major codices important for the textual criticism belonged initially to Orthodox institutions, but the Orthodox scholars didn’t understand their value. Codex Alexandrinus was the property of the Church of Alexandria during the period when Cyril

46   Alexandru Mihăilă Loukaris was metropolitan there. When he became patriarch of Constantinople, Loukaris took the codex with him and donated it as a gift to King James I of England (Spinka 1936). Codex Sinaiticus, discovered by Tischendorf in St. Catherine monastery of Sinai, was donated by monks to the Russian emperor, but the Soviet government sold it to the British Museum. The Leningrad Codex was found by Abraham Firkovich, a Karaite Jew from Odessa, who didn’t provide any information about the acquisition. In 1839 the codex passed into the possession of Odessa Society of History and Antiquities and was stored in the Odessa museum. There it was noticed and described for the first time by the Berlin rabbi Moses Pinner, who realized that it had been written in Egypt in 1010 (Pinner 1845, 81). In 1863 the codex was sold to the Imperial Public Library of St. Petersburg (Szyszman 1975). Daniil Khvolson knew about the codex, but Firkovich acquired a bad reputation, because he tried to prove the antiquity of the Karaism in Crimea. Therefore the codex fell into oblivion, and the first scholar who understood the importance of the codex and departed from the tradition of the rabbinic Bibles was Rudolf Kittel in his third edition of Biblia Hebraica. It was only after such treasures were appreciated by Western scholars that the Orthodox scholars in the twentieth century turned to scientific translations made from valuable sources (critical editions of the Hebrew text and the initial form of the Septuagint). In 1954–​ 1955 Athanasios Chastoupis published in Athens the Septuagint text in parallel columns with a modern Greek Katharevousa translation of the Hebrew text. Emilijan Čarnić, professor at the Theological Faculty of Belgrade, offered a new translation of the Psalter from Greek (Kragujevac, 1979, 1985). In the 1990s Sergey S. Averintsev, a renowned Russian classicist, translated parts of the Psalter both from the Septuagint and the Hebrew text. The first Bible in modern Greek appeared with the blessing of the Holy Synod in 1997, published by the Greek Bible Society. Already in 1968, professor V. Vellas of Athens had twenty-​two books of the Old Testament translated from Hebrew in Katharevousa. After Vellas’s death in 1969, the project continued with a commission of professors led by I. Oikonomou (N. Olympiou, N. Papadopoulos, P. Simotas, and V. Tsakonas). But in 1976, the official Greek language changed from Katavrevousa to Dimotiki, so for the Bible of 1997 professors V. Tsakonas and M. Konstantinou, helped by a philologist, A. Chiotellis, rendered the Old Testament into Dimotiki, using Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (1977) and Rahlfs’s Septuagint (1935). A letter of recommendation (with an indecipherable signature) emphasizes that the new translation “can help the godly people who have scientific preoccupations for knowing, understanding, and acquainting themselves with the truth revealed by God, but cannot replace the liturgical and general use in our Holy Orthodox Church the translation of the Seventy.” The Orthodox diaspora adopted different directions. In 2003 Father Predrag Samardžić published the Psalter translated for the first time into Serbian from Hebrew. In 2008 a new edition of the Orthodox Study Bible appeared. The first edition (1993) contained the Psalter and the New Testament from the New King James Version, but for the second edition the St. Athanasius Academy of Orthodox Theology under the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America completed a revision of the Old Testament from the Septuagint, arguing in the preface, “though the Orthodox Church has never officially committed itself to a single text and list of the Old Testament books, it has traditionally used the Greek Old Testament of the Septuagint.” In 2011 the Russian Bible Society published the modern Russian Bible. The work for translating the Old Testament started in 1996, coordinated by Mikhail G. Seleznev with a

The Old Greek, Hebrew, and Other Text Witnesses    47 team of linguists (V. Y. Vdovikov, A. E. Grafov, A. S. Desnitsky, L. E. Kogan, L. V. Manevich, E. B. Rashkovsky, E. B. Smagina, S. V. Tishchenko, Y. D. Eydelkind). Between 1999 and 2010 the Old Testament, translated from Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (1990), was published. In postcommunist Romania, an important role in publishing academic translations of the Bible was played by New Europe College in Bucharest. In 2004–​2011 a team of classicists led by Cristian Bădiliță, Francisca Băltăceanu, and Monica Broșteanu translated the Septuagint from Rahlfs’s critical text. The eight-​volume project has extensive introductions and philological and exegetical notes. Since 2014 the New Europe College has organized a seminar for translating the Hebrew Bible (Stuttgartensia), led by professors F. Băltăceanu and M. Broșteanu. Between 2017 and 2021 the Pentateuch was published in three volumes, with substantial introductions and explanatory notes. Professor Madeea Axinciuc coordinated another team, which since 2015 translated from Hebrew the books of Jonah and Ruth and partially the Psalms. In 2013 with the support of United Bible Societies and the Bulgarian Bible Society founded in 1993, a translation of the Bible in contemporary Bulgarian from the critical editions (Stuttgartensia, Rahlfs, Nestle-​Aland) appeared. The team of philologists from the Theological Faculty of Sofia and from the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences was formed of N. S. Shivarov, S. V. Slavov, I. Zh. Dimitrov, R. Stefanov, S. E. Kozhuharov, E. T. Stoyanov, I. I. Naydenov, and S. Nikolova.

New Insights One must conclude that for the Orthodox churches the Old Greek and the Slavonic versions functioned as traditional sources. For the Greeks the intangibility of the divinely inspired Septuagint and Old Greek New Testament was a sign of national resistance, while for the others the Slavonic version, in its turn a later adaptation, permitted openness toward the Latin and finally the Hebrew text. Nevertheless, especially after the fall of communism, the Orthodox countries tried to rediscover their confessional identity and therefore the Septuagint came into view, encouraged also by the new interest in the Septuagint that was breaking through in the Western academic circles of patristic studies. On the one hand, new studies tackled the importance of the Septuagint for reclaiming the Greek patristic heritage, but on the other hand fundamentalist approaches tried to transform the Septuagint into the only Old Testament version proper to the Eastern Churches. Conservative theologians resumed Justin Martyr’s polemics against the Hebrew text, viewed as corrupted by the rabbis against the Christian messianic interpretations. One can spot this particular assumption in many theological fields, from essays, novels, and prefaces of patristic translations to academic studies. While the Hebrew Bible was considered a product of the Jewish synagogue, accepted by the protestants and the Catholics as a basis for their Bible translations, the Septuagint was identified as a marker of Orthodoxy, distinct from the Vulgate appropriated by the Catholics or from the Peshitta peculiar to the Nestorian Church. This confessionalization of the Septuagint could be found very pervasive in some contemporary approaches, in most cases affirmed by dogmatists and patristic

48   Alexandru Mihăilă scholars, while for most biblical scholars the importance of the Hebrew texts, as well as the other textual witnesses, is taken for granted. In 2001 Archbishop Bartolomeu Anania of Cluj-​Napoca (Romania) published a new translation of the Bible, for the Old Testament trying to recover the Septuagint tradition. In the preface he wrote, “Septuagint became textus receptus (the inspired text) for the entire European East, later defined as Orthodoxy.” Similarly, Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev), president of the Synodal Biblical and Theological Commission of the Russian Orthodox Church, states, “the basis of the Old Testament text in the Orthodox tradition is the Septuagint,” which served “as a textus receptus [official, ‘received’ text] in the Eastern Church” (2012, 34). Dogmatician Ioan Ică Jr. appreciated the Septuagint “rapidly changed from the Bible of Alexandria to ‘the Bible of the Church,’ from the Bible of Hellenistic Judaism to Scripture of the ancient Christians” (2008, 169). Quoting Mogens Müller, who coined the Septuagint as “the first Bible of the Church,” he continued, “Discredited and calumniated by the rabbis, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures was adopted by the Christians, who [ . . . ] defended it as a prophetic revelation and divinely authorized interpretation of the ancient Hebrew Scriptures” (2008, 173). The patrologist Cristian Bădiliță, who led a team translating the Septuagint into Romanian, wrote that the Septuagint “became the ‘official’ Bible of the Church” (2004, 15) or “probably ‘the authoritative text of the Orthodoxy’ ” (2008, 232). In these dogmatic and patristic circles the old polemical issue that the rabbis had falsified the Scripture reemerged. Professor Ică wrote that the original Hebrew text “was in fact changed by the rabbinical Masoretes in order to close the possibilities for Christian interpretations” (2008, 175). More vividly in the afterword to the Romanian translation of Theodoret of Cyrus’s commentary on the book of Psalms, the translators explained that the Hebrew Text is “full of omissions and additions” and “the Jews at the end of the first century began to change the text of Scripture under the very careful supervision of rabbis with much hatred of the truth of Scripture, to whom the enemy [i.e., the devil] darkened their minds, so they made many mistakes” (Teodorit episcopul Kirului 2003, 530, 533). The Romanian biblical scholar and Semitist Eugen J. Pentiuc represents a particular case. In addition to his first doctoral dissertation, a commentary on Hosea done on a text translated from Hebrew, Pentiuc sets on identifying the “classical” messianic texts in the Hebrew Bible (pre-​and Masoretic text) while offering the rationale of such a daring endeavor for an Orthodox theologian: “The main objective is to grasp the nuances missing from Messiah’s previously rendered portraits, which have been fashioned in many instances based on the language and metaphor of the Septuagint” (Pentiuc 2006, xv). The systematic theology, separated from a real contact and study of the textual witnesses, made the mistake of taking over the polemic accents from the second-​century controversies between the Church and the Synagogue. But Justin Martyr explained the discrepancies as reflecting such a modification of the Hebrew Scriptures by the Jews, starting from the presumption that the Septuagint and the Hebrew Text must reflect the same textual version. It is strange to find out from a contemporary theologian that the Septuagint is conceived of “not as a daughter, but as a sister of the Masoretic text,” but in the same time to admit the old polemic that the rabbis changed the text out of hatred against the Christians. Generally, the biblical scholars showed more balanced views, taking into account the polymorphous state of the Old Testament witnessing version. Recently, Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev) argued, “the Orthodox Church has never canonized any one text or translation,

The Old Greek, Hebrew, and Other Text Witnesses    49 any one manuscript or one edition of Holy Scripture. There is no single generally accepted text of the Bible in the Orthodox tradition.” The Septuagint has “an especially important role,” but it is false “to assert that the Septuagint and only the Septuagint is the Bible of Orthodoxy” (2017, 31–​32). The specialists involved in modern translation assumed this necessity. As Mikhail Seleznev put it, “If some books of the Old Testament existed from the very beginning in two editions, then it is desirable to have translations of both editions” (2008, 61). Professor Miltiadis Konstantinou recommended also that “the Church must recognize as its own heritage both texts, the Hebrew and the Septuagint” (2012, 186), and Father Eugen Pentiuc concluded, “I would like to see within the Eastern Orthodox tradition more concrete steps in raising the awareness of the exegetical and theological value of the M[asoretic] T[ext] in conjunction with Q[umran], Sam[aritanus], S[yriac Peshitta]” (2014, 100). The modern scientific approach assured the importance of the Hebrew and Greek texts, as a multiple textual reality that existed from the beginning. The Septuagint is not a mere translation of the same Hebrew text as the Masoretic one, but another ancient textual witness. I can only hope that the following projects of Bible translations supported by the Orthodox Churches will be orientated toward the simultaneous valorization of the Masoretic and the Septuagint versions, along with the other textual witnesses.

References Alfeyev, Hilarion. 2012. Orthodox Christianity. Volume 2: Doctrine and Teaching of the Orthodox Church. New York: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press. Alfeyev, Hilarion. 2017—​Иларион [Алфеев] (ред.). Современная библеистика и Предание Церкви. Материалы VII Международной богословской конференции Русской Православной Церкви. Москва, 26–​28 ноября 2013 г. 2nd ed. Москва: Общецерковная аспирантура и докторатура им. свв. Кирилла и Мефодия/​Познание. Argyriou, Astérios. 1990. “La Bible dans l’Orthodoxie grecque du XVIIe siècle.” Revue des Sciences Religieuses 64, no. 2: 141–​168. Bădiliță, Cristian. 2008. Glafire: Nouă studii biblice și patristice. Iași: Polirom. Bădiliță, Cristian, et al. 2004. Septuaginta. Vol. 1. Iași: Polirom. Batalden, Stephen K. 2013. Russian Bible Wars: Modern Scriptural Translation and Cultural Authority. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Conțac, Emanuel. 2011. “Tradiția biblică românească: O prezentare succintă din perspectiva principalelor versiuni românești ale Sfintei Scripturi.” Studii Teologice s. III, 7, no. 2: 159–​245. Dafni, Evangelia G. 2010. “Konstantinos Oikonomos ex Oikonomon als Septuaginta-​ Interpret.” In Congress Volume Ljubljana 2007, edited by André Lemaire, 265–​292. VTSupp 133. Leiden: Brill. Delicostopoulos, Athan. 1998. “Major Greek Translations of the Bible.” In Krašovec 1998, 297–​316. Desnitsky, Andrei S. 2005. “The Septuagint as a Base Text for Bible Translation in Russia.” The Bible Translator 56, no. 4: 245–​252. Dimitrov. 2007—​ Димитров, Иван Желев. “Преводите на Библията на съвременен български език.” Библията в България, Сборник с доклади от научни конференции в София и Велико Търново. София: 86–​97.

50   Alexandru Mihăilă Gallagher, Edmon L. 2012. Hebrew Scripture in Patristic Biblical Theory. VCSupp 114. Leiden: Brill. Ică, Ioan., Jr. 2008. Canonul Ortodoxiei. Volume 1: Canonul apostolic al primelor secole. Sibiu: Deisis; București: Stavropoleos. Kalantzakis. 2006—​Καλαντζάκης, Σταύρος Ε. Εισαγωγή στην Παλαιά Διαθήκη. Θεσσαλονίκη: Πουρναράς. Kashirina. 2014—​Каширина, Варвара Викторовна. “Полемика святителя Феофана Затворника по вопросу перевода Священного Писания на русский язык.” Христианское чтение, no. 6: 251–​277. Kilpatrick, Hilary. 2014. “From Venice to Aleppo: Early Printing of Scripture in the Orthodox World.” Chronos: Revue d’Histoire de l’Université de Balamand 30: 33–​61. Konstantinou, Miltiadis. 2012. “Bible Translation and National Identity: The Greek Case.” International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church 12, no. 2: 176–​186. Krašovec, Jože, ed. 1998. The Interpretation of the Bible: The International Symposium in Slovenia. JSOTSupp 289. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Kuzmič, Peter. 2004. “The Bible Society’s South Slavic Bible in the Balkan Maelstrom.” In Sowing the Word: The Cultural Impact of the British and Foreign Bible Society 1804–​2004, edited by Stephen Batalden, Kathleen Cann, and John Dean, 251–​267. Sheffield: Phoenix Press. Livanios, Dimitris. 2014. “‘In the Beginning Was the Word’: Orthodoxy and Bible Translation into Modern Greek (16th–​19th Centuries).” Mediterranean Chronicle 4: 101–​120. Markovski. 1926–​1927—​Марковски, Ив. “История на българския синодален превод на Библията.” Годишник на Софийския универститет. Богословски факултет 4: 1–​59. Mihăilă, Alexandru. 2018. “The Septuagint and the Masortic Text in the Orthodox Church(es).” Review of Ecumenical Studies 10, no. 1: 30–​60. Mulder, Martin Jan. 1988. “The Transmission of the Biblical Text.” In Text, Mikra: Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, edited by Martin Jan Mulder, 87–​136. Assen: Van Gorcum, Philadelphia: Fortress Press. Naumow, Aleksander. 2016. “Le traduzioni bibliche in serbo, bulgaro e macedone (XIX–​XXI sec.).” In Traduzioni e rapporti interculturali degli slavi con il mondo circostante, edited by Maria Di Salvo and Giorgio Ziffer, 55–​66. Biblioteca Ambrosiana—​Slavica Ambrosiana 6. Milano: Bulzoni. Pavel, Eugen. 2013. “Modelul slavon versus modelul latin in textele biblice românești.” Revista de istorie și teorie literară 7, no. 1–​4: 23–​36. Pentiuc, Eugen J. 2006. Jesus the Messiah in the Hebrew Bible. New York, NY: Paulist Press. Pentiuc, Eugen J. 2014. The Old Testament in Eastern Orthodox Tradition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pinner, [Ephraim Moses]. 1845. Prospectus der Odessaer Gesellschaft für Geschichte und Alterthümer gehörenden ältesten hebräischen und rabbinischen Manuscripte. Ein Beitrag zur biblischen Exegese. Odessa: Gesellschaft [für Geschichte und Alterthümer]. Seleznev. 2008—​ Селезнев, М.Г. “Еврейский текст Библии и Септуагинта: два оригинала, два перевода?” XVIII Ежегодная богословская конференция Православного Свято-​ Тихоновского гуманитарного университета: Материалы. Vol. 1, 56–​ 61. Москва: Издательство ПСТГУ. Seleznev. 2019—​Селезнев, Михаил. “Текст Писания и религиозная идентичность: Септуагинта в православной традиции.” Государство, религия, церковь в России и за рубежом, 37, no. 4: 192–​211.

The Old Greek, Hebrew, and Other Text Witnesses    51 Snigirev. 2017—​ С нигирёв, Ростислав. “Оценка экзегетической точности и последовательности Синодального перевода с точки зрения ученого XXI века.” In [Alfeyev] 2017, 536–​549. Spinka, Matthew. 1936. “Acquisition of the Codex Alexandrinus by England.” Journal of Religion 16, no. 1: 10–​29. Stoykov. 2017—​ Стойков, Венцислав Бориславов. Преводна рецепция на библията на новобългарски език през XIX век. София. academia.edu/​39928290/​Преводна_​ рецепция_​на_​библията_​на_​новобългарски_​език_​през_​XIX_​в. Szyszman, S. 1975. “Centenaire de la mort de Firkowicz.” In Congress Volume Edinburgh 1974, edited by John A. Emerton, 196–​216. VTSupp 28. Leiden: Brill. Teodorit episcopul Kirului. 2003. Tîlcuire a celor o sută cincizeci de psalmi ai proorocului împărat David. Petru Vodă: Sf. Mănăstire Sfinții Arhangheli. Thomson, Francis J. 1998. “The Slavonic Translation of the Old Testament.” In Krašovec 1998, 605–​920. Tov, Emanuel. 2015. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Qumran, Septuagint: Collective Essays, volume 3. VTSupp 167. Leiden: Brill. Vaporis, Nomikos Michael. 1994. Translating the Scriptures into Modern Greek. Brookline: Holy Cross Orthodox Press.

Chapter 3

From Suspi c i on to Appreciat i on The Change of Perception Regarding Theodotion’s Version of Daniel in Patristic Literature Daniel Olariu Introduction The Septuagint translation of Daniel circulated in antiquity in two Greek versions, known as the Old Greek and Theodotion. Intriguingly, while the latter text displaced the former in its transmission history, the personality of Theodotion and the version associated with his name are shrouded in mystery. Furthermore, the ancient patristic sources perpetuate this mystery by both offering contradictory comments with regard to the provenance, time, and religious appurtenance of Theodotion and documenting a change of perception within the Christian church regarding his version, namely, from suspicion to a positive appreciation of its merits, leading to its acceptance. The present analysis aims to investigate the earliest patristic sources that have bearings on the transmission history of Theodotion’s translation in relationship to the Old Greek. Furthermore, it attempts to show that these sources not only document a change toward a positive reception of Theodotion’s version within the Christian circles but also preserve valuable information regarding the rationales that ultimately led to the complete supplanting of the Old Greek version of Daniel in the vast majority of the Septuagint manuscripts.

Patristic Evidence Concerning Theodotion and His Translation The mystery that shrouds the personality of Theodotion and, implicitly, the version associated with his name, is perpetuated by the early patristic comments, which are scanty and

From Suspicion to Appreciation    53 often contradictory. The church fathers that directly or indirectly refer to Theodotion and his work include, chronologically, Irenaeus of Lyons, Origen, Eusebius of Caesarea, Epiphanius of Salamis, and Jerome of Stridon.1

Irenaeus of Lyons (ca. 130–​200) In his complete extant work, Contra haereses (ca. 180),2 Irenaeus offers the first patristic testimony on Theodotion as a historical figure in the context of the Jewish-​Christian disputes on Isa 7:14: God, then, was made man, and the Lord did Himself save us, giving us the token of the Virgin. But not as some allege, among those now presuming to expound the Scripture, [thus:] “Behold, a young woman shall conceive, and bring forth a son,” as Theodotion the Ephesian has interpreted, and Aquila of Pontus, both Jewish proselytes.3

In this brief comment, Irenaeus provides useful information, clarifying the provenance of Theodotion, namely, Ephesus of Asia Minor. He further notes a particular of his religious identity, that is to say he undertook a religious conversion experience, becoming a Jew. The most we can add to these particulars is Irenaeus’s characterization of Theodotion and Aquila as “expounders” of Scripture.4 The fact that he mentions Theodotion before Aquila may occasion the question whether it affords some piece of information concerning the chronological precedence of the former over the latter.

1  For the sake of clarity, a few remarks on the citation method referring to patristic sources are in order: (1) When a source is quoted for the first time, we offer both the reference to the source text and its translation in English; (2) for subsequent citations from the same source, we refer the reader only to its English translation; (3) the patristic citations for which an English translation is lacking (or in some cases could not be retrieved) are referred to only in their source text. 2  This work, which originally was composed in Greek and now is preserved only in fragments, comprises five books. However, the work came to us in a complete form in Latin, and its translation is believed to have been made by the beginning of the third century (A. Cleveland Coxe, introductory note to Against Heresies [ANF 1:311–​ 312]). In Migne’s collection (PG 7: 437a–​1224d), the available Greek fragments were interspersed in the Latin text. For the composition date of Contra haereses, see A. Cleveland Coxe, note to Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.21.1 (ANF 1:451 [at n. 11]). 3 Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.21.1 (ANF 1:451). The Greek text, which follows the quotation from Isa 7:14, reads: ὡς Θεοδοτίων ἡρμήνευσεν ὁ Ἐφέσιος, καὶ Ἀκύλας ὁ Ποντικὸς, ἀμφότεροι Ἰουδαῖοι προςήλυτοι. Irenaeus of Lyons, Contra haereses 3 (PG 7:946a–​b). 4  There is no doubt that by the phrase μεθερμηνεύειν τολμώντων τὴν Γραφὴν “audent interpretari Scripturam (Latin),” “presuming to expound the Scripture,” Irenaeus alludes to Aquila’s and Theodotion’s work as translators. The passage quoted earlier continues with Irenaeus’s argument from the Old Greek translation that supports the Christian interpretation of Isa 7:14. Though the continuation is not extant in a Greek form, the Latin text uses similar wording to the Septuagint: “interpretatum vero in Graeco ab ipsis Judaeis multum ante tempora adventus Domini nostri,” “but it was interpreted into Greek by the Jews themselves, much before the period of our Lord’s advent.” Irenaeus of Lyons, Contra haereses 3 (PG 7:946b); Eng. trans., Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.21.1 (ANF 1:451).

54   Daniel Olariu Similarly, the lack of any mention of Symmachus alongside Theodotion and Aquila could provide a further chronological clue to their disposition in relation to each other.5

Origen Adamantius (ca. 185–​253) A further attestation to the historical Theodotion comes through the literary legacy of Origen,6 the voluminous author7 and prodigious scholar8 of the first half of the third century. In his magnum opus, the Hexapla (ca. 231–​2 45),9 which was structured as a synopsis of parallel biblical texts in six columns, Origen incorporated in its last column a Greek text that he attributed to Theodotion (col. 6).10 In the other Hexaplaric columns, Origen included a form of the Hebrew Text extant in his days (col. 1), a transliteration of the Hebrew Text into Greek letters (col. 2), a Greek translation attributed to Aquila (col. 3),11 a second Greek translation attributed to Symmachus

5  In this case, Irenaeus’s silence would most likely point to the fact that the translation of Symmachus was not yet accomplished. See, for instance, Samuel Davidson, A Treatise on Biblical Criticism: The Old Testament (vol. 1; Boston: Gould and Lincoln, 1853), 219. 6  There are numerous passing references by church fathers to the life and literary activity of Origen. However, the most notable treatments of his floruit are Eusebius’s Historiae Ecclesticae 6 (PG 20:519a–​636c), Eng. trans., Eusebius, Church History 6.1–​39 (NPNF2 1:249–​281); Jerome’s De viris illustribus (PL 23:663b–​667b), Eng. trans., Jerome, Lives of Illustrious Men 54 (NPNF2 3:373–​ 374); Epiphanius’s De mensuris et ponderibus, trans. from Syriac, Epiphanius’ Treatise on Weights and Measures (ed. and trans., James Elmer Dean; Studies in Ancient Orient Civilizations 11; Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1935), 15–​39; and further by the same author but a more hostile treatment, Epiphanii, Adversus Haereses 2/​1 (PG 41:1067d–​1076b), Eng. trans., Frank Williams, The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis: Books II and III (Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 36; Leiden: Brill, 1994), 131–​134. 7  The industrious character of Origen made Jerome rhetorically ask, “Who has ever managed to read all that he has written?” (Jerome, Letter to Paula 33 [NPNF2 6:46]). According to Epiphanius’s account, Origen’s writings amounted to 6,000 volumes (Williams, The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, section IV:44[64].63.7–​8, 189). However, Jerome disputes the accuracy of this number (cf. Jerome, Apology against Rufinius 2.22 [NPNF2 3:513–​514] and Apology against Rufinius 3.23 [NPNF2 3:530–​531]). 8  For Origen’s prodigious personality and knowledge, see Jerome’s account of Lives of Illustrious Men 54 (NPNF2 3:373–​374), wherein he claims that “he [Origen] understood dialectics, as well as geometry, arithmetic, music, grammar, and rhetoric, and taught all the schools of the philosophers.” Apology against Rufinius 3.23 (NPNF2 3:374). 9  Some historical background information puts Origen’s monumental achievement in perspective: Origen learned Hebrew mainly for this project, to which he supposedly devoted around twenty-​eight years (Epiphanius, Adversus Haereses 2/​1[PG 41:1073b–​c]; Williams, The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, section IV:44 [64].3.1–​4, 133–​134]). Furthermore, it is estimated that “if it [Hexapla] had been written on papyrus scrolls, it would have comprised fifty large volumes; if in the form of a codex, it would have filled nearly seven thousand pages.” See Robert H. Pfeiffer, Introduction to the Old Testament (3rd ed.; New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1941), 109; see also A. Cleveland Coxe, introductory note to the Works of Origen (ANF 4:230). 10 Eusebius, Church History 6.16 (NPNF2 1:261). 11  For a recent discussion on the ancient sources referring to Aquila in both Christian and Jewish literature, see Jenny R. Labendz, “Aquila’s Bible Translation in Late Antiquity: Jewish and Christian Perspectives,” HTR 102 (2009): 353–​388.

From Suspicion to Appreciation    55 (col. 4),12 and a third Greek translation—​the Old Greek or Septuaginta—​as it was preserved in Origen’s time (col. 5).13 As might be expected from such a voluminous work, which probably comprised fifty volumes altogether, the Hexapla seems to have proved to be unpractical, “far too bulky for common use, and too costly for transcription.”14 These practical considerations presumably generated the need for a simplified edition. Ostensibly, the response to this necessity was the Tetrapla, a work that incorporated only the last four Greek texts from Origen’s six-​columned Bible.15 Evidence suggests that in the making of the Hexapla the selection process operated at the level of manuscript transmission. Origen’s primary goal was to produce a recension of the Old Greek translation in order to parallel the Hebrew Text quantitatively and, thus, to assist the church in its polemics with the Jews.16 In order to achieve his purpose, Origen marked the Greek text with diacritical signs:17 with obeli (–​) and metobeli (: or /​.) at the beginning and the end, respectively, indicating those words, phrases, or passages in the

12 

According to Eusebius’s account, who admittedly relies on Origen himself for this information, Origen “received these with interpretations of others, from one Juliana, who, he also said, derived them by inheritance from Symmachus himself.” Eusebii Pamphilii, Historiae Ecclesticae 6 (PG 20:559a); English trans. Eusebius, Church History 6.16 (NPNF2 1:264). 13  In addition to these four Greek texts, Origen came across other translations of certain biblical books, which he appended as additional columns to the Hexapla. Consequently, Origen’s work comprised for some books seven columns (Heptapla), eight columns (Octopla), and even nine columns (Enneapla). Jerome, Lives of Illustrious Men 54 (NPNF2 3:374). 14  Cox, introductory note to The Works of Origen (ANF 4:230). 15  The Tetrapla is evidenced by the explicit reference to it by Eusebius: “In a separate work he also prepared an edition of Aquila and Symmachus, and Theodotion, together with the Septuagint, in what is called the Tetrapla” (Eusebius, Church History 6.16 [NPNF2 1:263]). Further evidence comes from the title attached to the MSS 88 of the Book of Daniel, Δανιὴλ κατὰ τοὺς Ο´ ἐκ τῶν τετραπλῶν ᾽Ωριγένους “Daniel according to LXX from Origen’s Tetrapla.” The view that the Tetrapla preceded the Hexapla, which most likely originated with Montfaucon, is highly problematic; for this view see Bernardo de Montfaucon, Hexaplorum Origenis quae supersunt (Paris, 1713). Davidson, A Treatise on Biblical Criticism, 201; and Coxe, introductory note to the Works of Origen (ANF 4:230). Similarly, Orlinsky’s radical view that no such work ever existed is untenable. Harry M. Orlinsky, “Origen’s Tetrapla—​A Scholarly Fiction?,” in Studies in the Septuagint: Origins, Recensions, and Interpretations (Library of Biblical Studies; New York: Ktav, 1974), 382–​391. 16  Origenis epistola ad Africanum de historia Susannae (PG 11:60b–​ 61a); English trans., A Letter from Origen to Africanus (ANF 4:387). The apologetic rationale behind the Hexapla might have further influenced Origen to organize its columns in a pedagogical-​patterned fashion, as Orlinsky suggests: Harry M. Orlinsky, “The Columnar Order of the Hexapla,” JQR 27 (1936–​1937): 137–​1 49. 17  For the system of notation employed in the Hexapla, see Origen, Commentariorum Evanghelium Matthaeum 15 (PG 13:1924a–​c), no English trans. available; Jerome, Preface to Psalms (NPNF2 6:494) and Preface to Genesis, quoted in Apology against Rufinus 2.25 (NPNF2 3:515–​516). In addition to the obelus and asterisk, Epiphanius mentions other two signs, lemniscus (÷) and hypolemniscus (⨪). Like the obeli, they were placed at the beginning of additions in the Old Greek over against the Hebrew Text. Epiphanius, Treatise on Weights and Measures, 17–​18 (obelus), 21–​21 (asterisk), 22–​23 (lemniscus and hypolemniscus).

56   Daniel Olariu Old Greek translation (col. 5) that represented additions over against the Hebrew Text (col. 1); and with asterisks (※) and metobeli (: or /​.), those words, phrases, or passages copied from cols. 3, 4, and/​or 6 into the Old Greek (col. 5) in order to fill its omissions over against the Hebrew Text.18 It is this recension of the Old Greek that was mainly copied and transmitted over the centuries and reached our days.19 As such, the significance of this Origenic recension of the Old Greek is double: (1) it represents a witness to the form of the early Greek translation of the Septuagint and, indirectly, to its Hebrew Vorlage; and (2) it embeds readings from Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion that have survived only in its manuscripts.20 Origen’s textual undertakings shed further light on the profile of the text attributed to Theodotion. His high regard for Theodotion’s version is demonstrated by his resort mainly to Theodotion to fill in the omissions in the Old Greek in comparison with the Hebrew Text.21 This is particularly true in the books of Job, Jeremiah, and Isaiah, where Origen used Theodotion to supply long portions that were absent in the Old Greek. In addition, from the extant Theodotionic readings throughout the fragmentary manuscripts of Origen’s fifth column, it may be inferred that the Theodotionic text covered almost the entire Bible,22 and even contained supplemental materials such as the apocryphal book of Baruch and the 18  As can be inferred from Origen’s own words (Origenis epistola ad Africanum de historia Susannae [PG 11:47b–​86d], English trans., A Letter from Origen to Africanus [ANF 4:386–​392]), the form of the Old Greek text in Origen’s time differed remarkably from the Hebrew Text. In this letter, besides noting the textual differences between the Old Greek/​Theodotion against the Hebrew Scriptures/​Aquila in the book of Daniel, Origen reviews for Africanus some other major and minor extant disparities between these texts in the books of Esther, Job, Jeremiah, Genesis, and Exodus. 19  The Hexapla was preserved in the library of Caesarea, where Origen’s disciple Pamphilus was in charge. The history of transmission of the Hexaplaric recension starts with the copying work of Pamphilus and Eusebius, who popularized this recension in the Palestinian region (see Eusebii Hieronymi Stridonensis, Praefatio Hieronymi in librum Paralipomenon [PL 28:1324b–​1325a]; Apologia adversus libros Rufini [PL 23:450d–​451a]; Commentariorum in epistolam ad Titum [PL 26:595a–​b]). A next significant step in its transmission represents the literal translation of it in 616–​617 by Paul, Bishop of Tella, in Mesopotamia, from one of the Hexaplaric codices in circulation at that time. Most likely, the Hexapla met its end along with the library of Caesarea in ca. 638, when the Saracens invaded and captured Caesarea. See Henry Barclay Swete, An Introduction to Old Testament in Greek (Cambridge: University Press, 1900), 75. Among the collections of readings from the Hexaplaric manuscripts that survived the Middle Ages and were produced starting with the beginning of the sixteenth century, the most notable are those prepared by Bernardo de Montfaucon, Hexaplorum Origenis quae supersunt (Paris, 1713), and Fridericus Field, Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt sive veterum interpretum Graecorum in totum vetus testamentum fragmenta (2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1875). A new, updated edition of the Hexapla is now in progress under the auspices of International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies. For more details on Hexapla Project, see Timothy M. Law, “A History of Research on Origen’s Hexapla: From Masius to the Hexapla Project,” BIOSCS 40 (2007): 47–​48. 20  See Alison Salvesen, “The Role of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion in Modern Commentaries on the Hebrew Bible,” in Let Us Go up to Zion: Essays in Honour of H. G. M. Williamson on the Occasion of His Sixty-​Fifth Birthday (eds. Iain Provan and Mark J. Boda; VTSup 153; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 95–​109. 21  Eusebii Hieronymi Stridonensis, Praefatio Hieronymi in librum Paralipomenon (PL 28:1325a). See further Rufinus’s comment written in the context of his dispute with Jerome over the translation of Origenic writings into Latin: “But Origen also, you will tell us, in composing his work, called the Hexapla, adopted the asterisks, taken them from the translation of Theodotion.” Apology 2.36 (NPNF2 3:476–​477). 22  According to Gwynn, Theodotion’s translation covered all Hebrew Scriptures but Lamentation. See John Gwynn, “Theodotion,” DCB 4:978.

From Suspicion to Appreciation    57 additions to Daniel.23 Lastly, another piece of evidence that indicates the preeminence of the Theodotionic text for Origen relates to the text of Daniel itself. In his lost work Stromata, Origen supposedly discontinued the use of the Old Greek text of Daniel and replaced it with Theodotion’s.24

Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. 260–​340) Eusebius mentions Theodotion twice in his influential work Church History (ca. 325).25 However, he does not contribute new background information about the floruit of Theodotion. The first reference appears in Eusebius’s citation of the tradition regarding the Scriptures that was passed on by Irenaeus. In this instance, Eusebius restates the precise words of Irenaeus, which were discussed earlier.26 Similarly, discussing “Origen’s research into the divine words,” which ultimately resulted in the Hexapla, Eusebius limits himself to only mention Theodotion’s translation next to those attributed to Aquila and Symmachus.27

Epiphanius of Salamis (ca. 310–​403) In his book De mensuris et ponderibus (ca. 392),28 Epiphanius offers the most extensive patristic discussion on the background of Origen’s Hexapla, referring to both its

23  Due to their absence in the Hebrew, the additions to Daniel were vigorously debated by the Jewish and Christian apologists. Traces of these disputes appear in Origen, A Letter from Origen to Africanus (ANF 4:386); Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.26 (NPNF2 1:276); Rufinus, Apology 2.33 (NPNF2 3:475); and Jerome, Apology against Rufinus 2.33 (NPNF2 3:517) and Preface to Daniel (NPNF2 6:493). 24  From Origen’s Stromata, which ostensibly included ten volumes, there are only three fragments left (one from vol. 6 and two from vol. 10). See Fragmenta ex Origenis libri Stromatum (PG 11:101a–​108a). In this respect, Jerome notes, “Wherefore also Origen asserts in the ninth book of the Stromata that he is discussing the text from this point on in the prophecy of Daniel, not as it appears in the Septuagint, which greatly differs from the Hebrew original, but rather as it appears in Theodotion’s edition.” S. Eusebii Hieronymi, Commentariorum in Danielem prophetam (PL 25:514a); Eng. trans., Jerome, Commentary on Daniel (trans. Gleason L. Archer; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1958), 48. 25  However, the date for the first seven volumes (out of ten) of Ecclesiastical History is set to ca. 303. The other three volumes “were added in successive editions, the final edition with book 10 being revised as late as c. 325).” See ODCC, s.v. “Eusebius.” 26  The quote from Irenaeus reads: “Concerning the translation of the inspired Scriptures by the Seventy, hear the very words which he writes: ‘God in truth became man, and the Lord himself saved us, giving the sign of the virgin; but not as some say, who now venture to translate the Scripture, ‘Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bring forth a son,’ as Theodotion of Ephesus and Aquila of Pontus, both of them Jewish proselytes, interpreted; following whom, the Ebionites say that he was begotten by Joseph.” Eusebius, Church History 5.8 (NPNF2 1:223). 27 Eusebius, Church History 6.16 (NPNF2 1:262). In this context, Eusebius characterizes the versions of the three as “well-​known translations.” 28  This work was originally composed in Greek, of which only fragments are extant; however, the work was translated in Latin and Syriac. The only complete manuscripts are preserved in Syriac, and they constituted the base for the Chicago English edition from which we quote. For further details on the background of this edition, see both Martin Sprengling’s foreword and James Elmer Dean’s introduction to Epiphanius’ Treatise on Weights and Measures, vii–​xii, and 1–​9, respectively.

58   Daniel Olariu notation29 and its incorporated Greek texts.30 Intriguingly, his concise information on Theodotion offers new details, including one that conflicts with a fact noted in other authors: But after this [Symmachus’s translation], in the time immediately following, that is, in the time of Commodus—​I mean, in the time of Commodus II—​there was a certain Theodotion of Pontus, of the doctrine of Marcion, the heresiarch of Sinope. Having been angered with his heresy, he turned aside to Judaism and was circumcised and learned the language of the Hebrews and their writings; he also published (a translation) on his own account. He published many things in agreement with the seventy-​two, for he derived many (peculiar) practices from the translational habit(s) of the seventy-​two.31

Epiphanius is at variance with Irenaeus (and implicitly Eusebius) regarding the provenance of Theodotion, namely, Sinope of Pontus as opposed to Ephesus of Asia Minor. As far as the new details are concerned, his comments provide further biographical insights to the historical figure of Theodotion. Epiphanius sets Theodotion’s floruit under the time of Commodus II, which proves to be of significance in assessing Epiphanius’s reliability as a historical witness. Furthermore, we learn new information about the background of Theodotion’s conversion to Judaism: He seemingly came into conflict with the adherents of Marcion’s ideas,32 with whom he also belonged. Lastly, Epiphanius offers a value-​judgment on Theodotion’s translation, explaining that its similarity in translational style to the Septuagint implies the reliance of the former on the latter.

Jerome of Stridon (ca. 347–​419) From Jerome we receive significant information on the textual history of the Theodotionic version of Daniel as well as a relevant overall description of its character. He mentions twice the decision of the Church to discontinue the use of Old Greek translation of Daniel in favor of Theodotion’s version. In both the Preface to his translation of Daniel (ca. 392) and his Commentary on Daniel (ca. 407) at 4:6 [in MT, v. 8]—​where he notes the absence of vv. 6–​9 from the OG, Jerome states: The Septuagint version of Daniel the prophet is not read by the Churches of our Lord and Saviour. They use Theodotion’s version, but how this came to pass I cannot tell. Whether it be that the Language is Chaldee, which differs in certain peculiarities from our speech, and the Seventy were unwilling to follow those deviations in a translation; or that the book was published in the name of the Seventy, by some one or other not familiar with Chaldee, or if

29  Epiphanius’ Treatise on Weights and Measures, 16–​ 18. In addition to the obeli and asterisks, Epiphanius discusses other two signs, lemniscus and hypolemniscus. Ibid., 22–​23. 30  Epiphanius starts his account on the Greek texts by referring to the Old Greek translation (ibid., 23–​28), and further details on the versions attributed to Aquila (ibid., 29–​32), Symmachus (ibid., 32–​33), Theodotion (ibid., 33–​34), and the “fifth” and “sixth” translations (ibid., 34–​37). 31  Ibid., 33. 32  For a discussion of Marcion’s views, see Gerhard May, “Marcionites,” EC 3:397–​398; and ODCC, s.v. “Marcion.”

From Suspicion to Appreciation    59 there be some other reason, I know not; this one thing I can affirm—​that it differs widely from the original, and is rightly rejected.33 With the exception of the Septuagint translators (who for some reason or other have omitted this whole passage [i.e., vv. 6–​9]), the other three translators have translated the word [i.e., ‫ ]אָ חֳ ֵרין‬as “associate” (collega). Consequently by the judgment of the teachers of the Church, the Septuagint edition has been rejected in the case of this book, and it is the translation of Theodotion which is commonly read, since it agrees with the Hebrew as well as with the other translators.34

Although he does not offer a definite explanation for the rejection of Old Greek Daniel, both comments show Jerome’s suspicion that the questionable quality of this translation was to be blamed for its differences with the Hebrew original. The characterization of Theodotion’s version as closely adhering to the Hebrew original is commended once more in Jerome’s writings, in his Preface to the Chronicle of Eusebius (ca. 381–​382). After acknowledging the difficulties involved in his translation of Eusebius’s Chronicle, Jerome offers overall characterizations of all Hexaplaric Greek versions. Here, Jerome again describes Theodotion as adhering closely to its Hebrew original: [ . . . ] and how difficult the task [of translation] is, the sacred records testify; for the old flavor is not preserved in the Greek version by the Seventy. It was this that stimulated Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion; and the result of their labors was to impart a totally different character to one and the same work; one strove to give word for word, another the general meaning, while the third desired to avoid any great divergency from the ancients.35

In addition to this translational feature of “avoiding any great divergency from the ancients,” Jerome offers a further characterization of the translation approach adopted by Theodotion. In the Preface to Job (ca. 392),36 while reacting against his opponents “who charge my translation with being a censure of the Seventy,”37 Jerome had recourse in his defense to the previous translation practices exhibited in the works of Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, and Origen’s Hexapla. In this context, Jerome characterizes Theodotion’s approach as a combination of Aquila’s literalism and the freer style of Symmachus: I’m compelled at every step in my treatment of the books of Holy Scriptures to reply to the abuse of my opponents, who charge my translation with being a censure of the Seventy; as though Aquila among Greek authors, and Symmachus and Theodotion, had not rendered word for word, or paraphrased, or combined the two methods in a sort of translation which is neither the one nor the other; and as though Origen had not marked all the books of 33 Eusebii Hieronymi, Praefatio Hieronymi in Danielem prophetam (PL 28:1291b); English trans. Jerome of Stridon, Preface to Daniel (NPNF2 6:492). See also Jerome’s Preface to Joshua (ca. 404), where, defending his translation, Jerome points to the fact that the Church reads Daniel from Theodotion: “Quare Danielem juxta Theodotionis translationem, Ecclesiae susceperunt?” Praefatio Hieronymi in librum Josue ben Nun (PL 28:464a). 34  Eusebii Hieronymi, Commentariorum in Danielem prophetam (PL 25:514a); Eng. trans., Jerome, Commentary on Daniel, 48. 35 Jerome, Preface to the Chronicle of Eusebius (NPNF2 6:483–​484). 36  Praefatio S. Hieronymi in librum Job (PL 28:1079a–​1084a); English trans. Jerome of Stridon, Preface to Job (NPNF2 6:491–​492). 37  Ibid., 491.

60   Daniel Olariu the Old Testament with obeli and asterisks, which he either introduced or adopted from Theodotion, and inserted in the old translation, thus showing that what he added was deficient in the older version.38

This valuable information on the character of the text attributed to Theodotion, however, contrasts with other particulars Jerome offers about the life of Theodotion, which conflict with the testimony given by earlier authors. In a brief description of the life and works of Origen, the “immortal genius,” Jerome associates Theodotion with the Ebionite sect and does not characterize him as a Jewish proselyte: Who is there, who does not also know that he was so assiduous in the study of the Holy Scripture, that contrary to the spirit of his time, and of his people, he learned the Hebrew language, and taking the Septuagint translation, he gathered the other translations also in a single work, namely, that of Aquila, of Ponticus the Proselyte, and Theodotion the Ebionite, and Symmachus an adherent of the same sect who wrote commentaries also on the gospel according to Matthew, from which he tried to established his doctrine.39

Evaluation of the Patristic Evidence on Theodotion The survey of patristic evidences on the figure and literary legacy of the historical Theodotion reveal not only intriguing discrepancies about his floruit but also significant historical evidences about the distinguished status gained by the Greek version attributed to him. Regarding biographical particulars, the church fathers contribute little to unraveling the mystery that shrouds the personality of Theodotion. The most compelling information concerns the shared tradition among the patristic writers that Theodotion was a Christian convert to Judaism. However, less certain is the information whether while Christian, he cherished Marcionite (Epiphanius) or Ebionite (Jerome) ideas. Even more intriguing are the conflicting accounts on Theodotion’s provenance: Irenaeus (and Eusebius) assigns his floruit to Ephesus, and Epiphanius assigns it to Pontus, while Jerome, who was likely aware of this disagreement, keeps silent on Theodotion’s origins.40 Regarding the date of Theodotion’s translation, Irenaeus appears to be the most reliable witness. His silence regarding Symmachus suggests that Theodotion’s translation was

38 

Ibid. Similarly, Jerome characterizes Theodotion’s translation technique as “taking a middle course between the ancients [Seventy] and the moderns [Aquila and Symmachus]”. Preface to the Four Gospels (NPNF2 6:488). 39  De viris illustribus (PL 23:665b); English trans. Jerome of Stridon, Lives of Illustrious Men 54 (NPNF2 3:373–​374). 40 If not directly, Jerome could have known about Irenaeus tradition on Theodotion by way of Eusebius’s writings (Church History 5.8 [NPNF2 1:223]). Jerome and Epiphanius were contemporaneous, corresponded each other, and took the same part in the Origenistic controversy (see W. H. Fremantle, prologomena to Jerome (NPNF2 6:xxi–​xxii).

From Suspicion to Appreciation    61 accomplished first. The tradition of mentioning the names of the versions in the order Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion by no means reflects their historical sequence. Most likely, this order is secondarily derived under the influence of the disposition of their texts in Origen’s Hexapla.41 Whereas the church fathers fall short in providing consistent historical information on the personality of Theodotion, the patristic sources afford us evidence for a significant shift of attitude within the Christian church, regarding the translation attributed to him. At the time of the first patristic comments on Theodotion, found in the writings of Irenaeus, the Old Greek translation was generally adopted and considered “the Bible” in the Christian circles. Moreover, important church fathers of the time (e.g., Justin Martyr [ca. 100–​165],42 Irenaeus [ca. 130–​200],43 Clement of Alexandria [ca. 150–​215]44) valued this translated Bible as inspired, conferring on it a status equal to the writings of the prophets.45 Also by that time, the Jewish community benefited from at least two new Greek translations—​Aquila and Theodotion. In Jewish-​Christian polemics, these texts with their new readings on key messianic passages undermined the long-​established Christian interpretations, which were based on the Old Greek translation. Taking note of these changes, the Christian writers immediately reacted, denouncing the readings and, with them, the texts as a whole, as reflecting a Jewish apologetic agenda. However, almost two centuries later, Jerome’s writings document a radically opposite situation. In contradistinction to the translations produced by Aquila and Symmachus, the Church regarded as favorable the version of Theodotion, abandoning previous hostile charges against it. The culmination of this development of favorable appreciation ostensibly resulted in Theodotion completely supplanting the Old Greek text of Daniel. As might be expected, this shift from suspicion toward positive appreciation demands an explanation and, in the following, we attempt to underscore some plausible factors that nurtured such a change.

41  The Hexaplaric disposition of the Greek versions in the order Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion demonstrably gave rise to a tradition that further perpetuated an imprecise understanding of their chronological order. The three translations were referred to in this order in the subsequent literature to Origen’s Hexapla: Eusebius, Church History 6:16 (NPNF2 1:262); Jerome, Apology against Rufinus 2.33–​34 (NPNF2 3:517), Letter to Pammachius 58.19 (NPNF2 6:78), Preface to the Book of Hebrew Questions (NPNF2 6:486), and passim; Augustine, The City of God 18.43 (NPNF1 2:386). By contrast, Origen mentions these versions in the order Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus. See Origen, Commentary on John 2.24 (ANF 10:371). 42  Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 71 (ANF 1:234). 43  Irenaeus states that “the Scriptures had been interpreted by the inspiration of God.” Against Heresies 3.21.2 (ANF 1:452). 44  Similarly, Clement states, “It was not alien to the inspiration of God, who gave the prophecy, also to produce the translation, and make it as it were Greek prophecy.” Stromata 1.22 (ANF 2:334–​335). 45  The catalyst for adopting the view of inspiration of the Old Greek is the pseudo-​letter of Aristeas, which was imported on Christian soil by Justin Martyr, To the Greeks (ANF 1:278–​279). In order to emphasize the divine origins of the Old Greek, subsequent patristic literature refers to it, expanding or underscoring certain aspects of it. See further Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 1.22 (ANF 2:334–​335); Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.21.2–​4 (ANF 1:451–​452); Tertulian, Apology 18 (ANF 3:32–​33); Epiphanius, Treatise on Weights and Measures, 23–​27; Augustine, The City of God 18.42–​43 (NPNF1 2:385–​387); Jerome, Preface to Genesis quoted in Apology against Rufinus (NPNF2 3:515–​516); and John Chrysostom, Gospel of St. Matthew 5.4 (NPNF1 10:32–​33).

62   Daniel Olariu The shift toward Theodotion’s acceptance, we tentatively suggest, represents a complex process which most likely started with Origen’s revolutionary Hexapla. Its influence was soon spread through the forms of its excerpts in the Tetrapla (cols. 3, 4, 5, and 6) and the Hexaplaric recension (col. 5). Once these copies were circulating among Christians, they raised awareness among learned individuals about the problems posed by the Old Greek translation when compared with the Hebrew Text. For the large Greek-​speaking communities, Origen’s work facilitated, for the first time, access to the intricate problems of textual differences already pinpointed by Jewish apologists.46 A further influence on the positive reception of the Hexaplaric recension was Origen’s notorious fame as a scholar. Despite some heretical charges against his views,47 he cherished the protection and support of the bishops of Palestine, and others as well,48 a fact that catalyzed the spread and acceptance of his recension of the Old Greek in the surrounding area49 and beyond.50 This new awareness of the problems posed by the Old Greek ostensibly matured the views of Christian writers regarding their texts. In this respect, two trends are apparent in the patristic literature. On the one hand, the very act of correcting the Old Greek toward the Hebrew indirectly assumed the referential status of the latter.51 While the flaws exhibited by the Old Greek translation were gradually acknowledged,52 hebraica veritas gained greater 46  In

his reply to Augustine, Jerome refers to the widespread acceptance of the Origen’s recension in the “libraries of the Churches.” Jerome notes, “Then do not read what you find under the asterisks; rather erase them from the volumes, that you may approve yourself indeed a follower of the ancients. If, however, you do this, you will be compelled to find fault with all the libraries of the Churches; for you will scarcely find more than one Ms. here and there which has not these interpolations.” Jerome, Letter to Augustine 75.5.19 (NPNF1 1:341). 47  Hermann Josef Vogt, “Origen,” DECL, 450–​451. 48 Jerome, Letter to Paula 33 (NPNF2 6:46). 49 Consequently, describing the geographical distribution of the current versions in the fourth century, Jerome notes that the Hexaplaric recension was used in Palestine: “Alexandria et Aegyptus in Septuaginta suis Hesychium laudat auctorem. Constantinopolis ueque ad Antiochiam Luciani martyris exemplaria probat. Mediae inter has provinciae Palaestinos codices legunt, quos ab Origene elaboratos Eusebius et Pamphilius vulgaverunt; totusque orbis hac inter se trifaria varietate compugnat.” Praefatio Hieronymi in librum Paralipomenon (PL 28:1324b–​1325a). This preface is also quoted by Jerome in Apologia adversus libros Rufini (PL 23:450d–​451a). 50  Jerome evidences that Origen’s corrections were known to Western readers as well, presumably by means of a form of Latin Scriptures. For instance, see the reproof against those who oppose his practice of copying the obeli and asterisks in his translated Latin books but still keeping them in their extant translations: “My detractors must therefore learn either to receive altogether what they have in part admitted, or they must erase my translation and at the same time their own asterisks.” Jerome, Preface to Job (NPNF2 3:491). 51  In this respect, Jerome asserts that by the labor of Origen to amend the Old Greek with obeli and asterisks he “showed that what he added was deficient in the Older version.” Jerome, Preface to Job (NPNF2 3:491). In the same Preface, Jerome describes his work as a translator comparable “to recover what is lost, to correct what is corrupt, and to disclose in pure and faithful language the mysteries of the Church” (ibid., 492). 52 For instance, the supplemented chunks of texts marked with asterisks by Origen came to be perceived as indicators toward the corrupt state of the Septuagint. Referring to the aspect of filling the lacunae of Old Greek with Theodotionic text, Jerome contends that Origen’s very practice was “showing that what he added was deficient in the older version.” Jerome, Preface to Job (NPNF2 6:491–​492). Furthermore, referring to the additions in the Old Greek marked with obeli, Basil explains, “in accurate

From Suspicion to Appreciation    63 authority. This development is also reflected in the work of Jerome as translator. He revised certain books of the Vetus Latina at the beginning of his career, relying on Origen’s Hexaplaric recension. In the last part of his career, however, he turned to the hebraica veritas to accomplish his work, the Vulgata.53 On the other hand, the Church’s acceptance and use of the Tetrapla and/​or the Hexaplaric recension paved the way for a more amiable attitude toward the Jewish versions of Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus.54 Although these differed from the Old Greek in particular readings, they did quantitatively reproduce the hebraica veritas in a more precise fashion. The readings that Origen had collated mainly from Theodotion55 in order to fill in the lacunae of the Old Greek in his Hexapla most probably elevated Theodotion’s status over the others, leading to its positive appreciation. Furthermore, the translation technique adopted by Theodotion to retain as much as possible from the style of the Old Greek, contrasted significantly to the slavishly literal style and the paraphrastic approach adopted by Aquila and Symmachus, respectively. Therefore, Origen’s decision to prioritize Theodotion for filling in the Old Greek’s long omissions not only represented the most natural choice,56 but also shaped a friendly attitude toward it in Christian circles. In the case of the book of Daniel, two further factors might have set the stage for Theodotion’s version to supplant the Old Greek. The first is the precedent of Origen himself. Jerome notes that in Origen’s Stromata “he [Origen] is discussing the text from this point on [from Dan 4:6] in the prophecy of Daniel, not as it appears in the Septuagint, which greatly differs from the Hebrew original, but rather as it appears in Theodotion’s edition.”57 Second, it appears that a sort of tradition emerged about the Theodotionic text that it represents a revision rather than a de novo translation. For instance, Epiphanius’s record that “He published many things in agreement with the seventy-​two, for he derived many (peculiar) practices from the translational habit(s) of the seventy-​two,”58 suggests that important translational techniques and/​or shared readings between Theodotion and the Old Greek copies these words [“and it was so” (Gen 1:9)] are marked with an obelus, which is the sign of rejection.” Basil, Hexaemeron 4.5 (NPNF2 8:74). 53  On Jerome’s use of hebraica veritas, see further Paul B. Decock, “Jerome’s Turn to Hebraica Veritas and His Rejection of the Traditional View of the Septuagint,” Neotestamentica 42 (2008): 205–​222. 54  Though not clear whether referring to Tetrapla or the Hexaplaric recension (which also contained readings of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion), Jerome points to the situation that they are accepted and read in the Churches: “But if, since the version of the Seventy was published, and even now, when the Gospel of Christ is beaming forth, the Jewish Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, judaising heretics, have been welcomed amongst the Greeks—​heretics, who, by their deceitful translation, have concealed many mysteries of salvation, and yet, in the Hexapla are found in the Churches and are expounded by churchmen.” Jerome, Preface to Job (NPNF2 3:491–​492). 55  Though Origen also relied on Aquila and Symmachus to fill in missing readings from Old Greek, it seems that a sort of tradition emerged, attributing this function mainly to Theodotion (Jerome, Letter to Augustin 75.5.19 [NPNF1 1:341]). Probably, this overall characterization of Theodotion was influenced by its major role in filling longer omissions in the Old Greek books of Isaiah, Job, and Jeremiah. 56  A similar opinion is expressed by Horne when he writes, “Origen, perhaps for the sake of uniformity, supplied the additions inserted in the Hexapla chiefly from this Version [Theodotion].” Thomas Hartwell Horne, An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures (6th rev. and enl. ed.; vol. 2; London: Cadell, 1828), 54. 57 Jerome, Commentary on Daniel, 48. 58  Epiphanius’ Treatise on Weights and Measures, 33.

64   Daniel Olariu were noticed. On the other side, Theodotion’s different readings over against Old Greek were apparently valued not so much as alterations but rather improvements of the latter toward the Hebrew Text.59 Once again the church’s decision to use Theodotion in Daniel supports this claim. The patristic literature provides ample evidence that the prophecies contained in this book were interpreted with reference to Jesus. This being the case, it stands to reason that the church’s decision involved a scrutiny of Theodotion’s version in this book. Particularly, it had to be determined whether or not key prophetical passages had been altered. This concern is precisely what a comparison of the extant textual data in Dan 9:21–​27 and 8:9–​14 shows. That is to say that in these particular passages Theodotion is primarily dependent on the Old Greek, while the differences are meant to bring the text closer to the Hebrew original.60 As such, the dependence of Theodotion on Old Greek in key passages such as Dan 8:9–​14 and 9:21–​27 along with its feature of adhering quantitatively to the Hebrew Text, both retaining when possible and correcting the Old Greek readings, may have commended Theodotion to the church fathers. This shift of perception is discernible in Jerome’s writings by the fact that although he demonstrably knew the previous traditions of Irenaeus and Epiphanius about Theodotion as a Jewish convert, he tends to Christianize him. As such, it is difficult to decide whether Jerome has considered Theodotion a proselyte or only a “judaizer.”61 Another question demands an answer: Why is the phenomenon of Theodotion displacing the Old Greek confined only to the Book of Daniel?62 Though a convenient alternative is

59 

Jerome offers a useful explanation of what he intended to convey by his Preface to Daniel, while he replies to the charges of Rufinus: “It is true, I said that the Septuagint version was in this book different from the original, and that it was condemned by the right judgment of the churches of Christ; but the fault was not mine who only stated the fact, but that of those who read the version. We have four versions to choose from: those of Aquila, Symmachus, the Seventy, and Theodotion. The churches choose to read Daniel in the version of Theodotion. What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches?” Jerome, Apology against Rufinus 2.33 (NPNF2 3:516–​517). 60  A study intended to assess the common basis between Theodotion and Old Greek led Olariu to conclude that in passages such as Dan 8:9–​14 and 9:21–​27 they cluster the most significant readings. See Daniel Olariu, “The Quest for the Common Basis in the Greek Versions to the Book of Daniel” (MA thesis, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2015), 120 (at nn. 8 and 9), compare with 136–​137. 61  Writing against Rufinus (ca. 402), Jerome characterizes Theodotion as a “judaizer”: “Still, I wonder that a man should read the version of Theodotion the heretic and judaizer [judaizantem], and should scorn that of a Christian, simple and sinful though he may be.” Apologia adversus libros Rufini (PL 23:455b–​c); English trans., Jerome, Apology against Rufinus 2.33 (NPNF2 3:517) This observation accords well with Jerome’s silence on the religious appurtenance of Theodotion when commenting on his floruit in Lives of Illustrious Men 54 (NPNF2 3:373–​374). A similar passage (though mistranslated) is found in Jerome’s Preface to Job (ca. 392): “the Jewish Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, judaising heretics, have been welcomed amongst the Greeks—​heretics [emphasize mine], who, by their deceitful translation ( . . . ).” However, in its Latin original (Praefatio S. Hieronymi in librum Job [PL 28:1079a–​1084a]), not only that the italicized term heretics is wanting, but also the adjective “Judaeus” (lat.) is nom. sing., defining only Aquila. As for the Theodotion and Symmachus, they are referred to as “judaizantes haeretici” (lat.), in accord with the quotation reproduced earlier in this note. To my knowledge, there is only one reference in Jerome’s literature that appears to support a Jewish affiliation of Theodotion: Jerome, Letter to Augustine 75.5.19 (NPNF1 1:341). 62  On the implications of the Old Greek’s replacement with Theodotion in the Eastern Orthodox tradition, see Eugen Pentiuc, The Old Testament in Eastern Orthodox Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989), 93.

From Suspicion to Appreciation    65 to maintain with Jerome that this was due mainly to the great disparities between the Old Greek and the hebraica veritas,63 we rather contend that the weight of the argument points to a different explanation. The argument based on great disparities is mitigated by the fact that the Septuagint books Job and Jeremiah display even greater differences over against the hebraica veritas than Daniel does, and yet they were not displaced by Theodotion. The disparities of both of these books with the Hebrew texts were recognized even in the patristic period, but they were retained.64 In order arrive to a more accurate explanation we must pinpoint from the outset the distinguishing standpoint maintained by the church fathers about the book of Daniel. The patristic sources document an interpretative tradition, shared by the Christian writers of the first centuries, that affirmed both the prophetic character and messianic overtones of the book.65 Clues to this strong tradition are discernible in the ongoing polemics between Christian and Jewish apologists and between Christian and heathen thinkers (and others), who, by various rationales, downgraded to a lesser or greater extent the book’s prophetic character. While the Jewish group seemingly pointed to both the textual differences between their copies and those of the church and to the different placement of the book within the Hebrew canon,66 the heathen Neoplatonist Porphyry negated the authenticity of Danielic oracles on philosophical grounds.67 The polemics around the former claims generated Origen’s monumental work, the Hexapla. The latter allegations attracted the answer of various apologists such as Methodius of Olympus (ca. 311), Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. 260–​340),

63 Eusebii

Hieronymi, Praefatio Hieronymi in Danielem prophetam (PL 28:1291b); English trans., Jerome of Stridon, Preface to Daniel (NPNF2 6:492). 64  For a discussion on the differences between Old Greek and the Hebrew text in the books of Job and Jeremiah, see Origen, A Letter from Origen to Africanus (ANF 4:386–​387). According to Jerome, similar objections to those of Africanus are raised by Jews against the story of Susanna, the Hymn of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon. See Jerome of Stridon, Apology against Rufinus 2.33 (NPNF2 3:517) and Preface to Daniel (NPNF2 6:493). 65 It could hardly be coincidental that the earliest extant Christian commentary on the Hebrew Bible pertains to the book of Daniel. Commenting on the Theodotionic version of Daniel, in his Commentarium in Danielem, Hippolytus (ca. 170–​ 236) applies some of the prophecies to Jesus, attesting the special status hold by this book within the Church. Hippolytus of Rome, Commentaire sur Daniel (eds. M. Lefèvre and G. Bardy; SC 14; Paris: Cerf, 1947). For English trans., see Hippolytus, Fragments from Commentaries: Daniel (ANF 5:177–​194) and Thomas Coffman Schmidt, Hippolytus of Rome: Commentary on Daniel (North Charleston, SC: Schmidt, 2010). 66 The relegation of Daniel among the Writings in the Hebrew canon attracted the response of Theodoret (ca. 393–​460). As Hill has rightly observed, the urgency stemming from Jewish-​Christian polemics was the major impetus for Theodoret not only to compose his commentary but also to antedate those of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. English trans. Theodoret of Cyrus, Commentary on Daniel (trans. with an introduction and notes by Robert C. Hill, WGRW 7; Atlanta: SBL, 2006), xviii–​xix, 5 (n. 7). For the Greek edition, see Theodoreti, Commentarius in visiones Danielis prophetae (PG 81:1256c–​1545a). 67  Porphyry (ca. 232–​303) was raised at Tyre and afterward traveled to Syria, Palestine, and Alexandria, studying the popular religious systems of these regions and finally adopting an attitude of skepticism toward them. In his writing, Porphyry attacked alleged problems in the books of the New and Old Testaments. ODCC, s.v. “Porphyry.” Regarding Daniel, he is the first that raised doubts regarding the traditional date of the book, suggesting instead a Maccabean milieu. See further P. Casey, “Porphyry and the Origin of the Book of Daniel,” JTS 27 (1976): 15–​33. The apologetic tradition of referring to Daniel’s prophecies in dialogues with pagans is further reflected in Augustine’s writings: Homilies on the Gospel of St. John 35:7 (NPNF1 7:206).

66   Daniel Olariu and Apollinarius of Laodicea (ca. 310–​390).68 Consequently, we suggest that the decision to displace the Old Greek with Theodotion only in the book of Daniel accords well with both the high prophetical status ascribed to this book within the Christian circles,69 and the necessity of the church to have, as much as possible, a text free of textual discrepancies with the Hebrew text for apologetic reasons.70 This explanation further accords with Jerome’s comments on the backdrop for this change. According to him, the decision was taken by the knowledgeable educators, “the teachers of the Church,” and among the gains obtained by reading Daniel with Theodotion is that “it agrees with the Hebrew as well as with the other translators.”71

Conclusions The research goal of this study was to extensively discuss all available data from the earliest patristic sources with bearings on the textual history of Theodotion’s translation. The survey of these sources reveals not only intriguing discrepancies about Theodotion’s floruit but also significant historical evidence about the prominent status gained by the Greek version attributed to him. The ancient patristic sources suggest an early rivalry between Theodotion and the Old Greek translations in their transmission histories. Whereas the first patristic references to Theodotion reflect an unfavorable attitude toward it (Irenaeus, Eusebius), Jerome’s records regarding the Church’s decision to replace the Old Greek of Daniel with Theodotion document the end of a process of shifting attitudes in Christian circles, from a suspicion toward Theodotion’s translation to a positive appreciation of its merits. In light of our discussion, this study argues that the major catalyst for this shift was Origen’s magnum opus, the Hexapla. Though primarily conceived as a tool to assist Christian apologists in their polemics with the Jews, Origen’s monumental work had far-​reaching consequences. Through its abbreviated 68  The fact that Porphyry’s allegations have been answered in three volumes by Eusebius, in a book of considerable size by Apollinarius, and partially by Methodius, it points to the great impact of this hostile work. Jerome, Commentary on Daniel, 15. Moreover, in answering to Rufinus, besides mentioning Methodius, Eusebius, and Apollinarius as defenders of the authenticity of Daniel’s prophecies, Jerome further announces his intention of writing “not a Preface but a book” in order to refute Porphyry’s alleged charges against Daniel. Apology against Rufinus 2.33 (NPNF2 3:517). 69  Indices of a tradition of preeminence of Daniel over other prophetical books is recorded in Jerome’s prologue to his commentary: “I wish to stress in my preface this fact, that none of the prophets has so clearly spoken concerning Christ as has this prophet Daniel. For not only did he assert that He would come, a prediction common to the other prophets as well, but also he set forth the very time at which He would come.” Jerome, Commentary on Daniel, 15. This preeminence based on similar grounds is also found in Theodoret of Cyrus, Commentary on Daniel, 6–​7. 70  Demonstrably, an additional justification for selecting the Theodotion translation was the fact that it also included the additions, contrasting Aquila and Symmachus which didn’t. Corroborating also with the fact that Theodotion was perceived as a Jewish text, this decision was in itself an apologetic move in order to discourage from the outset any accusation that the additions were of Christian fabrication. As such, this decision accords with the traditional argument already used by the church in defending specific Septuagint readings, pointing to its Jewish origins. 71 Jerome, Commentary on Daniel, 48.

From Suspicion to Appreciation    67 forms, the Tetrapla and Hexaplaric Revision, Christians throughout the Greek-​speaking world could assess the extent of the intricate textual differences between the Old Greek and the Hebrew original. Moreover, the learned Christians of the time (e.g., Jerome) gradually relied more on the hebraica veritas than on its first Greek translation. Several characteristics of Theodotion’s translation demonstrably secured its preferred status over Aquila and Symmachus. Among these, Theodotion was distinguished by its role in filling the lacunae of the Old Greek, including some additions from the Old Greek, being rather a revision than a translation, and adopting many readings from the Old Greek, differing from the extreme literalism of Aquila and the free approach of adopted by Symmachus. In the case of the book of Daniel, the apologetic rationale determined a more radical decision by the Church in order to clear some textual charges against the faulty nature of the Old Greek translation. Consequently, the adoption of Theodotion instead of the Old Greek represented both an innovative answer to such charges and a reflection of the church’s interest in upholding the messianic interpretation of the book.

References Primary Sources Dean, James Elmer, ed. and trans. Epiphanius’ Treatise on Weights and Measures. Foreword by Martin Sprengling. Studies in Ancient Orient Civilizations 11. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1935. Field, Fridericus. Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt sive veterum interpretum Graecorum in totum vetus testamentum fragmenta. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1875. Hippolytus of Rome. Commentaire sur Daniel. Edited by M. Lefèvre and G. Bardy. SC 14. Paris: Cerf, 1947. Jerome. Commentary on Daniel. Translated by Gleason L. Archer. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1958. Montfaucon, Bernardo de. Hexaplorum Origenis quae supersunt. Paris: 1713. Patrologia Graeca. Edited by J.-​P. Migne. 162 vols. Paris, 1857–​1886. Patrologia Latina. Edited by J.-​P. Migne. 217 vols. Paris, 1844–​1864. Schmidt, Thomas Coffman. Hippolytus of Rome: Commentary on Daniel. North Charleston, SC: Schmidt, 2010. The Ante-​Nicene Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. 1885–​1887. 10 vols. Repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994. The Nicene and Post-​Nicene Fathers, First Series. Edited by Philip Schaff. 1886–​1889. 14 vols. Repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994. The Nicene and Post-​Nicene Fathers, Second Series. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. 1890–​1900. 14 vols. Repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994. Williams, Frank, trans. The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis: Books II and III. Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 36. Leiden: Brill, 1994.

Secondary Sources Casey, P. “Porphyry and the Origin of the Book of Daniel.” JTS 27 (1976): 15–​33. Davidson, Samuel. A Treatise on Biblical Criticism: The Old Testament. Vol. 1. Boston, MA: Gould and Lincoln, 1853.

68   Daniel Olariu Decock, Paul B. “Jerome’s Turn to Hebraica Veritas and His Rejection of the Traditional View of the Septuagint.” Neotestamentica 42 (2008): 205–​222. Gwynn, John. “Theodotion.” DCB 4:970–​979. Horne, Thomas Hartwell. An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures. 6th rev. and enl. ed. Vol. 2. London: Cadell, 1828. Labendz, Jenny R. “Aquila’s Bible Translation in Late Antiquity: Jewish and Christian Perspectives.” HTR 102 (2009): 353–​388. Law, Timothy M. “A History of Research on Origen’s Hexapla: From Masius to the Hexapla Project.” BIOSCS 40: (2007: 30–​48. May, Gerhard. “Marcionites.” EC 3: 397–​398. Olariu, Daniel. “The Quest for the Common Basis in the Greek Versions of the Book of Daniel.” MA thesis, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2015. Orlinsky, Harry M. “The Columnar Order of the Hexapla.” JQR 27 (1936–​1937): 137–​149. Orlinsky, Harry M. “Origen’s Tetrapla—​A Scholarly fiction?” Pages 382–​391 in Studies in the Septuagint: Origins, Recensions, and Interpretations. Library of Biblical Studies. New York, NY: Ktav, 1974. Pentiuc, Eugen. The Old Testament in Eastern Orthodox Tradition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989. Pfeiffer, Robert H. Introduction to the Old Testament. 3rd. ed. New York, NY: Harper & Brothers, 1941. Salvesen, Alison. “The Role of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion in Modern Commentaries on the Hebrew Bible.” Pages 95–​109 in Let Us Go up to Zion: Essays in Honour of H. G. M. Williamson on the Occasion of His Sixty-​Fifth Birthday. Edited by Iain Provan and Mark J. Boda. VTSup 153. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Swete, Henry Barclay. An Introduction to Old Testament in Greek. Cambridge: University Press, 1900. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. Edited by F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingstone. 3rd ed. rev. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Vogt, Hermann-​Josef. “Origen.” DECL, 444–​451.

Chapter 4

Sy riac Versi ons of the B i bl e George A. Kiraz The New Testament scholar Bruce M. Metzger dedicated the first chapter of his Early Versions of the New Testament (1977) to the Syriac Versions (plural).1 Metzger’s first paragraph aptly sets the stage for the current overview:2 Of all the early versions of the New Testament, those in Syriac have raised more problems and provoked more controversies among modern scholars than any of the others. The reason lies partly in the multiplicity of translations and revisions of the Syriac Scriptures, and party in the ambiguity of evidence concerning their mutual relationship. At the same time, that five or six separate versions in Syriac were produced during the first six centuries of the Christian era is noteworthy testimony to the vitality and scholarship of Syrian churchmen. In fact, as Eberhard Nestle has reminded us, “No branch of the Early Church has one more for the translation of the Bible into their vernacular than the Syriac-​speaking. In our European libraries, we have Syriac Bible MSS from Lebanon, Egypt, Sinai, Mesopotamia, Armenian, India (Malabar), even from China.”

Indeed, Metzger’s statement can be extended to the Old Testament to some extent as we know of two full-​fledged versions and at least two revisions that were produced during the first seven centuries.

1  This outline was produced at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton; the author acknowledges the help of the staff, especially at the library. The discussion is based on Sebastian P. Brock’s The Bible in the Syriac Tradition, Third Edition (Piscataway, 2020) and various relevant articles in the Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Syriac Heritage (Piscataway, 2011). The New Testament portion derives from George A. Kiraz, Syriac-​English New Testament (Piscataway, 2020). 2  B. Metzger 3, citing Nestle’s “Syriac Versions” in Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible iv (1902), 645.

70   George A. Kiraz

9th CE 8th CE

Hebrew MT (Vocalization of the text)

Jacob of Edessa (Select books)

7th CE

6th CE

Syro-Hexapla

Philoxenus

(Select books)

Georgian

CPA

Century

5th CE

Latin Vulgate

Ethiopic

Armenian

4th CE 3rd CE

Coptic Origon’s Hexapla

Old Latin

Proverbs 2nd CE

1st CE

Targums

Peshitta OT

Theodotion, Aquila, Symmachus

Standardized Hebrew Consonantal Text

LXX Revision

1st BCE

2nd BCE 3rd BCE

LXX

Ancient Hebrew Text Syriac Bible Versions: Old Testament By George A. Kiraz

Image 4.1  Syriac Bible Versions: Old Testament By George A. Kiraz

Old Testament Versions Two major versions of the Old Testament are known in Syriac, one from the original Hebrew and another from the Greek Septuagint. In addition, two further revisions of at least some books are known. The following diagram depicts the place in the Syriac versions with respect other early versions.

Syriac Versions of the Bible    71

Peshitta By the middle of the second century, most of the Hebrew Bible had appeared in Syriac in a version that was later called Peshitta or “simple” (in contrast with later more philologically complex versions). We are certain of this early dating because other works in Syriac that belong to the early period already cite Old Testament verses from this version. The original translator—​more likely translators—​of the Peshitta is/​are not known. In fact, by the early days of Late Antiquity, Syriac writers had no memory of who the translators were, some providing random speculations and guesses. Theodore of Mopsuestia (350–​428), whose Greek writings are known to us from Syriac, acknowledged that the Peshitta translator is unknown. Modern scholars also battled with this question: Was the Peshitta translated by Aramaic-​speaking (probably non-​Rabbinic) Jews for Jewish consumption? Was it commissioned by the early Syriac Church? Or was it the product of a hybrid Jewish-​Christian community? While there is no conclusive evidence, it is clear that the Peshitta Old Testament is the work of translators who were quite apt in the Jewish tradition but also closely connected with early Syriac Christianity. By the third and fourth centuries, the transmission of the Peshitta was so strong that all later branches of the Syriac church adopted it as their standard text. The Peshitta is a direct translation from the Hebrew text in its “standard” first-​century shape. This Hebrew text, in its consonantal form, is more-​or-​less equivalent to text that we find in modern printed editions. The value of the Peshitta is enhanced by its reliance on extrabiblical sources. In instances when the Hebrew text was ambiguous, the Peshitta translators—​ especially those working on the Prophets and Wisdom books—​ seem to have consulted the Septuagint to resolve these ambiguities. The translators—​at least those of the Pentateuch—​seem to have been quite aware of the Aramaic traditions of the Jewish Targums. In fact, many of the distinctive features of the Peshitta show links with the Jewish exegetical tradition. For instance, the Hebrew text of Gen 8:5 tells us that Noah’s Ark landed on Mount Ararat. The Peshitta, however, tells us that the Ark rested “on the mountains of Qardu” further south in an area familiar to the Syriac-​speaking world, both Jewish and Christian. The Peshitta is simply following the Jewish tradition, found in Josephus and the Targums, which name the mountains of Qardu as the destination for the Ark. The Jewish-​Christian Syriac interaction seem to have been bidirectional. While most contact went from the Jewish tradition, there is evidence that the Targum version of Proverbs is indeed based on the Syriac Peshitta. Syriac, as a linguistic identity, transcended Aramaic-​speaking Jews and Christians for centuries to follow. The Muslim writer Ibn Abī Uṣaybiʿa, writing centuries later, tells us that the physician Masargawayh “was Jewish by faith, a Suryānī [“Syriac”]—​‫وكان يهودي المذهب سريانيا‬.”3 The date of the translation is less debated. Peshitta quotations—​especially from the Pentateuch, Psalms, and the Latter Prophets—​appear in Tatian’s Diatessaron (ca. 120–​ca. 185), the Old Syriac Gospels (see under “New Testament,” later), and other early Syriac writers. Scholars agree that some form of the Peshitta was in circulation around AD 150. Some books, such as Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah, appear toward the end of the century. The translation went through a number of gradual internal revisions. Implicit complex

3 IAU.

72   George A. Kiraz Hebrew phraseology was gradually disambiguated in a more explicit manner, and some Hebrew readings were harmonized. This gradual process of internal revisions came to a halt by the fifth or sixth century, the same period during which the New Testament text of the Gospels came to a halt. Indeed, three textual stages can be defined. The earliest is obviously lost, but some of its features survive in manuscripts of the fifth century. The text of this stage is the closest to the Hebrew original. The second stage, present in sixth-​century manuscripts, represents a philological smoothing of the text to make it more idiomatic for the Syriac reader. This is the period where lectionaries begin to appear, marking a liturgical engagement of the text. The final stage, known to us from ninth-​century and later manuscripts, is considered the Textus Receptus, with a larger number of variants that demonstrate an increase in transmission. But despite their number, these later variants are of less importance and most of them belong to the orthographic or internal philological sphere. In fact, if one compares printed editions based on second-​millennium manuscripts (such as the Mosul Bible) against the Leiden scholarly edition of the Peshitta, one finds that both texts are identical 99% of the time for many books. The significance of the 1% variants is further reduced when we learn that almost half of them pertain to differences in plural mark dotting and prefixes such as the conjunction “and” often found in narratives. This leads us to conclude that the gradual internal revision of the Peshitta was quite conservative. The language of the Peshitta—​as we have it today—​is the standardized (and fossilized) Classical Syriac, the Aramaic language of Edessa and its surroundings. This, of course, does not preclude that the autograph of the translators did exhibit features known from other varieties of Aramaic, especially considering the close proximity with the literary Aramaic known from the Targum and other Aramaic forms used by Jews. But by the time the Peshitta reaches the end of its first stage, it is purely in the Edessene form of Aramaic, what we call Classical Syriac. As for its provenance, most scholars lean toward Edessa, considered by the tradition and by scholarship as the birthplace of Classical Syriac, or its close surroundings. However, we must also take into consideration that by the fourth century—​when we begin to receive the Peshitta in its current form—​Classical Syriac has already attained its (quasi) fossilized form morphologically and syntactically. Writers producing works within a vast geographical area across the Eastern Byzantine Empire and Persia produced literature in the same mutually comprehensible idiom. This does not preclude that other parts of the early Syriac world had some hand in the formation of the Peshitta. The transmission of the Peshitta Old Testament is quite strong. In fact, prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Syriac manuscripts predated Hebrew manuscripts by at least 300 to 400 years. There are no less than twenty-​seven manuscripts of one or more books that are datable to the sixth century and no less than thirty-​two manuscripts from the seventh century. The first millennium gave us one hundred manuscripts that survive with a larger number from the second millennium. Four manuscripts contain the entire Bible: Codex Ambrosianus (Milan, ms B.21 Inf., sixth or seventh century), Bibliothèque Nationale (Paris, ms 341, seventh or eighth century), Laurentian Library (Florence, ms Or. 58, ninth century), and Cambridge University Library (ms Oo.I. 1,2, twelfth century). The sheer number of manuscripts, with little variance among them, gives us confidence that we possess a stable text. The Peshitta “canon”—​if one can speak of a canon—​includes all the books of the Hebrew Bible as well as the so-​called deuterocanonical books as can be demonstrated in the complete

Syriac Versions of the Bible    73 Bible manuscripts listed in the previous paragraph. The order of books, however, differs in the aforementioned manuscripts. It is interesting to note that the texts of Ruth, Susanna, Esther, and Judith formed one collection called “The Book of Women.”

Syro-​Hexapla The other major Syriac Version of the Old Testament came a few centuries later. During the seventh century, the Syriac-​speaking world began to retranslate many Greek works that were previously translated into Syriac. The reason for this is philological. The translation methodology of the fifth century was free, translating sense for sense. By the seventh century, however, translators began to favor literal translations, sometimes replicating the source language morpheme for morpheme. Such translations were viewed as more accurate. It was in this philological context that the Old Testament was translated into Syriac, but this time from Greek, precisely from the Septuagint column of Origen’s Hexapla, or “sixfold.” This translation was performed by Paul of Tella between 613 and 617 in the Ennaton, a monastery outside of Alexandria where Paul was in exile. Unlike the somewhat loose order book in the Peshitta, Paul’s translation followed the order of books found in the Septuagint. The extreme literal style vis-​à-​vis the original is of great importance for modern scholarship, as it raises the possibility of recovering the text of Origen’s lost Hexapla. While scholarship calls this version the Syro-​Hexapla, the Syriac church labeled it ‫“ ܐܝܟ ܡܫܠܡܢܘܬܐ ܕܫܒܥܝܢ‬according to the tradition of the seventy,” or ‫“ ܡܦܩܬܐ ܕܫܒܥܝܢ‬Version of the Seventy,” or simply ‫“ ܕܫܒܥܝܢ‬of the seventy.” The earliest of the Syro-​Hexapla manuscripts belong to the seventh or eighth century, not too long after the translation was made by Paul (mss BL Add. 14,442 with parts of Genesis and Add. 12,134 with Exodus). The second half of the Old Testament is preserved in Ambrosian Library, Milan (ms C 313 Inf.) and belongs to the eighth or ninth century. It was reproduced in a photolithographic edition by Ceriani. We know that the first half of the Old Testament was preserved in another manuscript that made it to Europe, as Andreas Masius (1514–​1573) used it in the sixteenth century;4 it is now lost. It contained part of the Pentateuch and the Historical Books. Another source for the Syro-​Hexapla is the corpus of biblical commentaries that sometimes cite it. There are also Syro-​Hexaplaic annotations found in the margins of existing Peshitta manuscripts. Despite the sources, there has been to this date no scholarly edition of the text, let alone a systematic textual analysis. Despite being a West Syriac miaphysite production, the Syro-​Hexapla was used to some extent by other Syriac-​using communities. It is cited in the commentaries of some East Syriac writers. The Melkites, who primarily used the Peshitta in their lectionaries, seem to have adopted some pericopes from the Syro-​Hexapla (especially from Ezekiel).

4 

He quoted it frequently in Syrorum Peculium (1572).

74   George A. Kiraz

Subsequent Revisions Two subsequent versions are known to have been made, though it is unlikely that they covered the entirety of the Old Testament. The first was made/​commissioned by Philoxenos of Mabboug and the other completed by Jacob of Edessa. We know that Philoxenus commissioned his Corepiscopos Polycarp to produce a revision of the New Testament (see what follows). The revision of some books of the Old Testament may have been connected with that same project. Nothing of this revision, however, survives apart from quotations found in the works of Philoxenus himself. It is thus difficult to ascertain anything about the features of this revision. If we are to judge by comparison, then the revision was probably made from the Greek (Lucianic in the case of the Old Testament) in a literal manner. Jacob’s revision partially survives for portions of the Pentateuch, Sam, Isaiah, Daniel, and Wisdom. The text is a hybrid version between the Peshitta, the Greek Septuagint, and the Syro-​Hexapla. A colophon produced in 719, only fifteen years after Jacob produced his revision, reads: This First Book of the Kingdoms was corrected as far as possible and with much effort, from the different traditions—​from that of the Syriacs and from those of the Greeks—​by the holy Jacob bishop of Edessa, in the 1016th year of the calendar of the Greeks, or rather of King Seleucus [i.e., around AD 704/​5], the third indiction, in the great monastery of Tell ʿAdda.5

Neither of these revisions made it to lectionaries and remained as scholarly exercises.

New Testament We have five versions of the New Testament in Syriac, not to mention the gradual activities of revisions that took place in between.

Gospel of the Mixed: The Diatessaron ̈ The earliest forms of the Gospels known in Syriac is ‫( ܐܘܢܓܠܝܘܢ ܕܡܚܠܛܐ‬read Evangelion da-​ Mḥalṭe) or “Gospel of the Mixed,” one Gospel narrative woven from the four Gospels. It was composed by a native of Mesopotamia named Tatian in the middle of the second century. The importance of the Gospel of the Mixed lies in the fact that Tatian relied on both an antecedent form of the Gospels that only later became “canonical” and extracanonical sources. Tatian’s harmony, known in Greek as the Diatessaron (or “through the four [Gospels]”), must have been the authoritative text among the Syriac Christians of the early Church, as it is the sole Gospel known to the Syriac authors of the late second and third centuries.6 The Syriac text of the Gospel of the Mixed is lost. St. Ephrem’s Gospel commentary is the major witness to its text. Presumed lost until the 1950s, Ephrem’s commentary was only accessible to us via an Armenian translation from Late Antiquity. 5 

Salvesen 13. the Diatessaron, see William Petersen, Tatian’s Diatessaron: Its Creation, Dissemination, Significance, and History in Scholarship (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1994). 6 On

Syriac Versions of the Bible    75

Century

6th CE 5th CE

Harklean

2nd CE

Georgian Gothic

Peshitta

Christian, Palestinian, Aramaic Armenian Ethiopic

4th CE 3rd CE

Anonymous (Minor General Epistles/ Revelation)

Philoxenian (lost)

Revised Greek Text Latin Vulgate

Old Syriac

Syriac Diatessaron

Coptic

Old Latin

1st CE 1st BCE

Ancient Greek Text Syriac Bible Versions: New Testament By George A. Kiraz Copyright © 2020 (Creative Commons License CC BY-NC 4.0)

Image 4.2  Syriac bible Versions: New testament By George A. Kiraz But things changed in the 1950s, when fragments of St. Ephrem’s commentary in the original Syriac appeared in the antiquities black market in Paris; the script found in the fragments dated back to the sixth century. The Chester Beatty Library in Dublin obtained the newly discovered fragments in 1956 and shelved them under call number MS. 709. A stray folio from the same manuscript appeared in Barcelona in 1966. Five more folios appeared in 1984, and a larger chunk in 1986. All in all, about 80 percent of the manuscript has been recovered. The Chester Beatty Library commissioned Louis Leloir (1911–​1992), a Belgian Benedictine monk, to edit the text with a Latin translation. Later, Carmel McCarthy provided an English translation.7

Gospel of the Separated: Old Syriac Gospels The separate Gospels—​Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John (not necessarily in this order)—​ were also known at an early age. Syriac Christians called them ‫( ܐܘܢܓܠܝܘܢ ܕܡܦܪܫܙ‬read, Evangelion da-​Mparshe) “Gospel of the Separated” in order to differentiate this text from the Gospel of the Mixed. This text is the precursor to the standard Peshitta Gospels (to be discussed next). It reached us in three incomplete manuscripts. 7  The Syriac text is published by Louis Leloir in Saint Ephrem, Commentaire de l’Évangile concordant, texte syriaque (Dublin, 1963) and (Louvain, 1990). An English translation is provided by Carmel McCarthy, St. Ephrem’s Commentary on Tatian’s Diatessaron (Oxford, 1993).

76   George A. Kiraz 1. Codex Cureton. Sometime in the tenth century, a monk named Ḥabib donated an old Gospel manuscript to Deir al-​Suryān (the Syrian Monastery) in the Egyptian desert. Whether this manuscript was originally complete or missing some leaves is unknown, but by the year 1222 it seems that, due to wear and tear, the manuscript was missing some portions. The monastery administration restored the old manuscript and added leaves of a similar size from other manuscripts in order to complete the lost gaps. It appears that those who were using the manuscript noticed that its text does not conform to the familiar Peshitta text. They began to alter the text by adding interlinear and marginal notes to bring it into closer conformity with the Peshitta. During the nineteenth century, the manuscript was acquired, along with many others, by the British Museum; it reached London on March 1, 1843. It was shelved under call number Add. 14,451. Somehow, three leaves ended up in Berlin at the Staatsbibliothek (Ms or. quart. 528). William Cureton (1808–​1864), who was then an Assistant Keeper of Manuscripts at the British Museum, noticed, either on his own or due to the alterations made by the manuscript’s earlier Syriac readers, that the Gospel text seemed more archaic than the Peshitta. Cureton was thrilled and announced that he had discovered “the identical terms and expressions which the Apostle himself employed.” Cureton printed the text in 1848 at his own expense but did not publish it until 1858, when it appeared with a lengthy preface and an English translation. He titled it A Very Ancient Recension of the Four Gospels in Syriac, hitherto Unknown in Europe. Cureton dated the manuscript to the fifth century on paleographical grounds. Other scholars concurred. Soon, this text was known in scholarly circles as the Curetonian manuscript. 2. Codex Sinaiticus I. Sometime either in the year 697 or 779 (the colophon is not clear, but 779 is more paleographically probable), a Syriac monk named John the Anchorite wanted to write a new manuscript of a text titled “Select Narratives of Holy Women.” It appears that John did not have access to parchment and decided to reuse an older manuscript, a common custom in antiquity. John picked up a Gospel manuscript that did not seem that important to him, rubbed off the text, and wrote the stories of the holy women on top of the old text. At the time, John was residing in Mʿarrat Meṣren, a city in the district of Antioch. Somehow, the manuscript ended up at St. Catherine’s Monastery in the Sinai desert, where it was later assigned the call number Syriac 30. Centuries later, in 1892, Agnes Lewis (1843–​1926) and her twin sister, Margaret Gibson (1843–​1920), were traveling in Egypt.8 During a visit to the library of St. Catherine’s Monastery, they came across this old palimpsest. They became intrigued by the Gospel text written underneath the hagiographical material and took 400 photographs. Back in Cambridge, where Lewis and Gibson lived, they developed the photographs onto glass slides. Two scholars in Cambridge, Robert Bensly (1831–​1893) and Francis C. Burkitt (1864–​1935), recognized a close affinity between this Sinai manuscript and the one discovered and published earlier by Cureton. Now, with two manuscripts exhibiting readings that seemed more archaic than the Peshitta, scholars began to contemplate if the Syriac world had known the separate Gospels in a version that predated the Peshitta. Agnes published what is now considered the standard edition of the manuscript in 1910 under the title The 8  For an account of their lives, see A. Whigham Price, The Ladies of Castlebrae: A Story of Nineteenth-​ Century Travel and Research (Gloucester, 1985); Janet Soskice, The Sisters of Sinai: How Two Lady Adventurers Discovered the Hidden Gospels (New York, 2009).

Syriac Versions of the Bible    77 Old Syriac Gospels. Now, these pre-​Peshitta Gospels had a new name in scholarly circles: the Old Syriac Version. 3. Codex Sinaiticus II (New Finds). Very recently, a third manuscript of the Old Syriac was discovered in another palimpsest in Deir al-​Suryān, and awaits scholarly attention.9 Analyzing the Sinai and the Curetonian texts, scholars determined that sometime during the late second or the early third century, the four Gospels were available in Syriac, alongside the Gospel of the Mixed. The process by which these Gospels were created from the Greek original drew on Syriac expressions from the earlier Gospel of the Mixed. The Syriac Gospel is one of the earliest witnesses to the Greek text that was in circulation between the second and the fifth centuries. The style of the Old Syriac Gospels was quite free, aiming to represent the meaning and essence rather than the form of the Greek text behind it; nevertheless, the Old Syriac version agrees with many features of early Greek manuscripts against later traditions. While it is very likely that a pre-​Peshitta version of Acts and the Pauline epistles was in circulation in the Syriac-​using Church, no such manuscripts have reached us. We know of the existence of the text because St. Ephrem wrote commentaries on them and, hence, must have had access to them. Gradually, users of the Old Syriac Gospels began to edit the text to bring it closer and closer to the Greek text of their time. This process took about two centuries. In fact, the Sinai and Curetonian manuscripts represent two snapshots into this long process, with the Sinai text exhibiting an earlier stage than the Curetonian. The revision came to a halt during the fifth century and the resulting text is what we now call the Peshitta, the version that is presented in this edition.

Peshitta As the Peshitta is the result of many decades of revisions of the Old Syriac version by many editors, scholars do not consider it to be a new translation from the Greek. Rather, it brought what preceded it into closer conformity with the Greek text of the time. More importantly, it incorporates a long biblical heritage from within the Syriac tradition. The Peshitta must have been supported by higher church authorities. Within a few centuries, the Gospel of the Mixed, which coexisted with the Gospel of the Separated, was suppressed, and began to fade away. The Old Syriac version was used less frequently and lost its authoritative status to the degree that when John the Anchorite wanted to write the stories of the holy women in 779, he recycled the Sinai Gospel text. But the acceptance of the Peshitta as the normative text took some time. Both manuscripts of the Old Syriac that survive were, in fact, produced during the fifth century, meaning that their text was still acceptable then. Traces of the Gospel of the Mixed and the Old Syriac also appear in other manuscripts of the fifth century, most notably a manuscript known as Codex Phillipps (no. 1388 in Berlin) and another in Paris (BnF syr 30). It might be safe to assume that by the sixth or seventh century, the Old Syriac version had fallen out of use, making way for the Peshitta to become the standard text. The fact that the Peshitta became the normative 9  It

is the underwriting of New Finds Syriac 37 and 39. The new parts were published by Sebastian Brock in Deltio Biblikon Meleton 31A (2016), 7–​18.

78   George A. Kiraz text of all the Syriac-​using churches regardless of their position on various Christological controversies is a clear indication that the text began to attain its authoritativeness prior to the time when the divisions of the fifth century took hold within Syriac Christianity. The Peshitta does not contain the entire New Testament as we know it today. The largest portion in the Gospel that is not present in the Peshitta is the story of the adulterous woman, found in John 7:53–​8:11. Here, the Peshitta is representing an earlier, original form of the Gospel of John: These verses do not appear in the Greek text until the fifth century (codex D-​05 is the earliest witness). The same applies to three verses in Acts. The Peshitta does not contain Acts 8:37, 15:34, and 28:29 because the Greek text underlying it did not have these verses, which began to show up in the Greek text around the fifth or sixth century. The Peshitta also does not include the so-​called Comma Johanneum, an interpolation after 1 John 5:7 that first appears in Latin manuscripts in the late fourth century. Not only verses but also entire books are absent in the Peshitta. No Peshitta manuscript includes the minor general epistles (2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, and Jude), whose canonicity even in Greek was disputed up to the fourth century. The same applies to Revelation, which is entirely absent from the Peshitta. In fact, Revelation is absent in the biblical and liturgical traditions of Eastern Christendom in general. Its canonicity was debated in the Christian East during the sixth century; but by then, the liturgical traditions, including lectionary readings, had been established for so long that, regardless of the debate’s outcome, it would have no effect on liturgical life.10 Having said that, these texts do appear in Syriac—​but in a post-​Peshitta form, as we shall see. Another feature of the Peshitta New Testament is the order of its books. It was mentioned that the Old Syriac Cureton manuscript arranged the Gospels in the order Matthew, Mark, John, Luke. But by the time the Peshitta became the authoritative text, the order had come to reflect the one we know now: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. However, the major general epistles (James, 1 Peter, 1 John) appear directly after Acts in most manuscripts. The association of the major general epistles with the book of Acts is also attested liturgically. The Liturgy of the Word in the West Syriac rite consists of four readings. The first is from the Old Testament and is read before the procession around the altar. The second is directly after the procession and is taken either from Acts or the major general epistles. The third is from the Pauline epistles, and the fourth is from the Gospels. The inclusion of James, 1 Peter, and 1 John in the second reading with the book of Acts is a clear indication that the Syriac liturgical tradition considers these books as a single unit with the Acts corpus.

Philoxenian The Peshitta represents the last stage of Syriac biblical developments in the Church of the East. Syriac Orthodox Fathers, however, embarked on at least two further revisions, each having its own motivation and style. The Christological controversies of the fifth century affected the Syriac-​using Church. As a result, three traditions evolved, all accepting the Peshitta as their authoritative Bible: the Church of the East did not accept the Council of Ephesus, the Syriac Orthodox Church did 10  For

a good analysis of Revelation in the Eastern Church, see Stephen De Young, “Is the Book of Revelation Canonical in the Orthodox Church?” in The Whole Council Blog (August 15, 2018) [blogs. ancientfaith.com/​wholecounsel].

Syriac Versions of the Bible    79 not accept the Council of Chalcedon, and the Melkites (at that point still Syriac-​using) and Maronites accepted both councils. Much theological debate followed. It was the Christological controversies that led the Syriac Orthodox bishop Philoxenus of Mabbug (ca. 440s?–​523) to have the Peshitta New Testament revised in order to provide a tool for theological debates. Philoxenos felt that the Peshitta did not represent the Greek texts of his time accurately. The Peshitta, of course, was rooted in the Syriac tradition, and the Greek text underlying it was centuries older than the Greek text of the fifth and sixth centuries. The Christological controversies originated in a Greek linguistic milieu; and the Syriac-​using world, which inherited the debates, needed the necessary philological tools. Having a Syriac New Testament text that represented the Greek texts of the time seemed, in the eyes of Philoxenos, a worthy cause. Philoxenus commissioned his Chorepiscopus Polycarp to revise the Peshitta to bring it even closer to the Greek text. Polycarp completed the task in 507 or 508. As this text was not intended for liturgical use, it was eventually lost; no manuscript of it survives. All that survives are citations by Philoxenus himself in his commentaries on the Gospels.

Harklean Just over a century later, in 616, Thomas of Ḥarqel, another Syriac Orthodox bishop, completed another revision, this time revising the Philoxenian text and turning it into a sophisticated literal translation of the Greek text. Unlike Philoxenus, Thomas acted not out of theological intentions, but rather philological ones. During his time, the Greek language had attained such a high prestige in the Syriac-​using world that philosophical works that had been translated into Syriac centuries earlier were now being retranslated to make them represent the original Greek quite literally. It was within this linguistic milieu that Thomas operated. If the Greek had a particle or a preposition, Thomas wanted these small linguistic elements represented in the Syriac text. As one can imagine, while this translation technique is philologically sophisticated, the result was nonidiomatic for the Syriac reader, probably sounding clumsy and unnecessarily complicated. Nevertheless, Thomas’s translation—​known as the Ḥarklean version—​found its way into liturgical use for some time before dying out liturgically. It is this complicated, nonidiomatic nature of these later versions that gave the already existing standard text the name simple, or “Peshitta.” ܳ ‫ܦܫ‬ ܺ peshiṭtā is a feminine adjective that means “simple.” It is feminine The Syriac word ‫ܝܛܬ‬ ܳ ‫ܡ ܰܦ‬, ܰ mappaqtā: “version” or “revision.” Hence, because it modifies the feminine noun ‫ܩܬܐ‬ ܳ ܳ ܰ ܺ ‫ ܰܡܦܩܬܐ‬mappaqtā peshiṭtā (West Syriac mafaqto fshiṭto) means “the Simple Version.” ‫ܦܫܝܛܬܐ‬ The name first occurs in Syriac manuscripts in the ninth century and was used to differentiate the Peshitta “simple” text from the overly complicated Philoxenian and Ḥarklean Versions. One positive result of the post-​Peshitta revisions is that we now possess Syriac texts for the minor general epistles (2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, and Jude) and Revelation dating back to the sixth century. Scholars are not sure if these texts belong to the Philoxenian Version or a similar, unknown revision. Nonetheless, these texts became part of the Syriac tradition. The style and idiom of the minor general epistles follows that of the Peshitta so closely that had these texts been part of Peshitta manuscripts, scholars would not have been able to recognize that they belong to a much later date. Finally, the story of the adulterous woman (John 7:53–​8:11) is also absent from the Peshitta. Its translation into Syriac is attributed to an Abbot named Paul, who found the Greek text in a manuscript in Alexandria. It is very likely, but not certain, that this Paul

80   George A. Kiraz is the same Paul of Tella who produced the Syro-​Hexapla (see earlier discussion under “Old Testament”).

Text Editions Bibliography The following bibliography is limited to available editions (including reprints). A fuller biography can be found in Brock’s The Bible in the Syriac Tradition, 3rd edition. 1. Entire Bibles (Peshitta) a. The Antioch Bible series edited by George A. Kiraz and Andreas Juckel, bilingual West Syriac-​English edition published by Gorgias Press. b. The Dominican Press Mosul edition (1887–​1892) in East Syriac, reprinted by Gorgias Press. c. The Urmia edition (1852) in East Syriac, reprinted many times by the Bible Society. 2. Old Testament a. Peshitta: Critical edition of the Peshitta Institute, formerly Leiden, published by Brill (1966–​). b. Syro-​Hexapla: A. Ceriani, Codex Syro-​Hexaplaris Ambrosianus (a photographic edition), 1874, reprinted by Gorgias Press. c. Syro-​Lucianic/​Philoxenian: A Ceriani, in Monumenta Sacra et Profania V.1 (1868). d. Jacob of Edessa: Salvesen, The Books of Samuel in the Syriac Version of Jacob of Edessa (1999). 3. New Testament a. G. A. Kiraz, Syriac-​English New Testament (Gorgias Press, 2020). The text is based on the 1920 edition of the British and Foreign Bible Society. b. All versions compared: G. A. Kiraz, Comparative Edition of the Syriac Gospels (4 volumes, 1996). c. Diatessaron: the text is lost; Ephrem’s commentary is edited by Leloir (1963); a reconstruction is available by I. Ortiz de Urbina, Vetus Evangelium Syrorum; Diatessaron Tatiani (1967). d. Old Syriac: F. C. Burkitt, Evangelion de-​Mpharreshe (1904, Codex Cureton); A. S. Lewis, The Old Syriac Gospels (Codex Sinaiticus I, 1910); S. P. Brock, “Two hitherto unattested passages of the Old Syriac Gospels in palimpsests from Sinai,” in Deltion Biblikōn Meletōn 21A (2016), 7–​18 (New Finds). e. Philoxenian?: Minor General Epistles included in G. A. Kiraz (2020; see 3a in this list). f. Harklean: i. Gospels: Andreas Juckel in G. A. Kiraz, Comparative Edition of the Syriac Gospels (E. J. Brill, 1996). ii. Epistles: B. Aland and A. Juckel, Das NT in syrischer Überlieferung series. 4. “Masora” (Mashlmānutha): Loopstra, An East Syrian Manuscript of the Syriac “Masora” . . . (Gorgias Press, 2014).

Chapter 5

The C op tic Bi bl e Hany N. Takla Introduction The term “Coptic Bible” is used in this chapter to refer to the Coptic-​language version of the Greek Christian Scriptures that was universally accepted by the Orthodox Church of Alexandria. It essentially comprises the list of books set in St. Athanasius’s Festal letter of AD 361, including Old and New Testament books. Unfortunately, there is no single manuscript that contains all of these books for a variety of reasons. Though scholars believe that all the books mentioned by Athanasius were translated into Coptic from Greek, the surviving manuscript tradition has pronounced gaps in the Old Testament as well as fragmentation in others. The New Testament, however, is complete in at least the two major dialects of Coptic: Bohairic and Sahidic.

The Version Exemplar The Old Testament is primarily based on the Greek Septuagint except for the book of Daniel, which was replaced long before by the more literary Theodotian version (Takla 2007:12–​13). The New Testament is more complex as it is not based on any one of the extant Greek manuscripts and was most probably translated from the pre-​Diocletian persecution period. In the summary provided by Bruce Metzger, the Sahidic and Bohairic versions show different affinities to Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus for the different parts of the New Testament. Otherwise, they can be described as a mixture of Alexandrian and western texts to varying degrees, although the Alexandrian readings tend to dominate (Metzger 1977: 133–​138). The origin of western text in Acts became prominent with the edition of the Mesokemic Glazier codex (Schenke 1991, Wisse 1995:137).

82   Hany N. Takla

Early History of the Translation Christianity was introduced in Egypt as early as the middle of the first century AD. It was done first through the news brought back by Egyptian Jewish pilgrims. The story of Apollo, an Alexandrian Jew that preached in Ephesus, indicated that the Christian teaching was incomplete (Acts 18:24–​25). The participation of Alexandrian Jews in the trial and stoning death of St. Stephen the Archdeacon (Acts 6:8–​7:60) may have dissuaded the apostles from going into such a hotbed of opposition early on. However, the appearance of Apollo apparently prompted St. Barnabas to come from Cyprus to preach in Alexandria, though unsuccessfully, as recorded in the Clementine Homilies.1 Shortly after, St. Mark most likely came alone and preached in Alexandria probably around AD 55.2 The new converts were predominately Hellenized Jews. They adopted the Greek, or Septuagint version of the Old Testament in addition to the New Testament books, also written in Greek, that were continually being added to until the end of that first century. By the middle of the second century, the Christian community included more and more non-​ Jewish members. Among them were Egyptians who were bilingual in Greek and Egyptian, and were now referred to as Coptic. This prompted the appearance of some ad hoc individual translations of parts of the Old and the New Testaments from Greek into Coptic. This process accelerated toward the later years of the second century and into the beginning of the following one in support of the growing movement of Christian evangelism to the Egyptian countryside during the papacy of Demetrius I, the Vinedresser (AD 189-​–​231). Most biblical scholars agree that by the fourth century, the entire canon of the Old and New Testament books was translated in at least the main Coptic dialect, Sahidic, as well as some of the books in several of the other literary dialects that were in use at that time: Akhmimic, Bohairic, Fayyumic, Lycopolitan, and Mesokemic. The history of the Coptic version of the Bible was articulated by three scholarly theories since 1965. The first and most elaborate was advanced by the Swiss scholar Rodolphe Kasser (Kasser 1965). Using among others the newly discovered Dishna Library, mostly preserved in Geneva’s Bodmer Collection, he established a seven-​stage progress scheme for the development of the Coptic version. His system starts with ad hoc translation as early as AD 150 with final standardization of the Sahidic version by the end of the third century. His seventh and final stage was the Sahidic version being replaced by the Bohairic version, which is the current dialect in use by the Coptic Church. In 1983, Tito Orlandi of Rome advanced a more simplified scheme of development that consisted of three stages (Orlandi 1986). Although agreeing with Kasser’s second-​century beginning, he tended to assign the development of the standard Sahidic version from the fourth to fifth century. In 1995, Frederick Wisse of Canada published an article with yet another revised scheme of the development of this version (Wisse 1995). His four-​stage system ignored

1 

Consult Swete 1914:104, n.1, for references to that encounter in the Clementine Homilies. This date is assumed based on the death of St. Barnabas the apostle at Cyprus in AD 54 and what would have been his deathbed instruction to his younger disciple, St. Mark, to complete the mission of carrying the Gospel to Alexandria, which had eluded them during their earlier visit. 2 

The Coptic Bible   83 the early origin of development advanced by Kasser and Orlandi and agreed with Orlandi in pushing the standardization of the Sahidic Version from the fourth to fifth century. He also addressed the Fayyumic version more than any of the other models. While all three scholars agreed on the last stage being the replacement of Sahidic by Bohairic, Wisse tended to assign an earlier date, AD 800. However, these models failed to treat the Bohairic version, which is now used exclusively in the Coptic Church. The Sahidic and Bohairic versions were independent translations from different Greek originals, currently in Egypt. This implies that the reemergence of the Bohairic version in eleventh-​century manuscripts was based on copies of older manuscripts rather than a new translation from the time that the Patriarchate moved from Alexandria to Cairo. This version was complete in the New Testament and selective in the Old. One would expect that the movement to translate Bohairic into Sahidic would have extended to completing the Old Testament books from the available Sahidic. However, the rise of liturgical lectionary use and the encroachment of Arabic during this period doomed the process. There is evidence that some Old Testament texts were translated from Sahidic to Bohairic, but only in form of lections, primarily from the Holy Week and Lent lectionaries.3

State of Preservation of the Coptic Version The Copts have always regarded the Old and the New Testaments as one entity, though they were never preserved together in a single manuscript. Coptic biblical manuscripts stressed functionality rather than completeness and tended to contain either a single or a collection of books rather than the complete canon of the Bible. The manuscripts of the complete canon, such as the Codex Vaticanus, were reserved for cathedrals in a large metropolis, and were always in Greek. However, the preserved Coptic manuscripts tended to have a monastic origin or were used in smaller parish churches. It is important to note that although biblical texts are found in all major Coptic dialects, the majority of the attested biblical books are only in Bohairic and Sahidic. Of those Coptic dialects, only the Sahidic version may have contained the entire canon of both the New and Old Testaments. On the other hand, the surviving Bohairic version has significant gaps in the Old Testament, especially in the historical books,4 indicating that it may never have been complete at any point in history. The rest of the dialects are attested only in certain books. While only Sahidic and Bohairic were translated independently from Greek originals, those of the other dialects were translations primarily from Sahidic, except for the later Fayyumic version that may have been translated from Bohairic (Takla 2014: 108). 3  For

more details on what has survived from the Old Testament in the Bohairic Lectionaries and Service books, consult Takla 2007:64–​7 1. 4  Historical Books of the Old Testament include: Judges, Joshua, Ruth, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Tobit, Judith.

84   Hany N. Takla Despite the entire canon once being completely found in Sahidic, it has survived mostly in fragmentary books. Books of the New Testament have been more completely preserved than those of the Old Testament. In general, however, completely preserved manuscripts of entire books are rather rare in this dialect.5 In Bohairic, the New Testament has been entirely conserved in many manuscripts since the twelfth century. Conversely, the Old Testament is not found completed in any one manuscript or in a combination of manuscripts. Unlike the Sahidic version, the biblical books that survived were mainly found complete and attested in multiple manuscripts. Notably missing from among them are the historical books and some of the poetical ones. Curiously, only the first fourteen chapters of Proverbs are preserved in Bohairic. Sarah Wagner argued that this was a result of the use of one incomplete manuscript as the exemplar for all other Bohairic manuscripts of this book since the fourteenth century (Wagner 2005). In terms of number of verses published and/​or recovered, Sahidic preserved nearly 70 percent of the Old Testament and all of the New Testament. Bohairic also preserved the entire New Testament but only about 60 percent of the Old Testament. If all the preserved verses in these dialects are grouped together, then the percentage of preservation is 82 percent of the Old Testament or 87 percent of the entire Bible canon. Other dialects preserved much lower percentages of the entire Bible and do not provide a witness to any verse not found in Bohairic or Sahidic. However, they do provide much important evidence for textual criticism. In summary, only Sahidic and Bohairic seemed to have had a standard complete New Testament as well as a complete Sahidic Old Testament, with a considerable portion in the case of Bohairic. Combined, Fayyumic and Mesokemic may have had a complete New Testament, but it is hard to make such a conclusion based on what has survived. The Old Testament, however, may have had only selected books or sections translated for mostly private use. Lycopolitan originating from the Late Antiquity’s hub of heterodoxy, Asyut, revealed its preferences by preserving only the Gospel of John and nothing else from the New and especially from the Old Testament. Akhmimic, on the other hand, may have been eclipsed by the Sahidic that was the language of the Monastery of St. Shenouda in the area. Judging from their scarcity, the rest of the texts found in the other dialects were for private devotional purposes. For more details, consult the works of Hany N. Takla (2007, 2014). Recovered remains of manuscripts found in the library of St. Shernouda Monastery (WM) in Sohag tend to have 50 percent more New Testament than Old Testament (Takla 2005: 46). The ratio is even higher in Bohairic biblical manuscripts found in the unpublished catalogs of the major manuscript collections of the Red Sea monasteries of St. Antony and St. Paul, which are the biggest extant monastic manuscript collections in Egypt. Furthermore, the production of manuscripts of the Bohairic version diminished with time after the fourteenth century and is now found almost exclusively in currently inhabited monasteries in Egypt. Many of the older manuscripts can be particularly found in European collections.

5  It was not until the early twentieth century that several complete New or Old Testament books were discovered in Sahidic. They came from the Fayyum’s Monastery of St. Michael in Hamuli, and are now kept at the New York’s Pierpont Morgan Library.

The Coptic Bible   85

State of Research on the Coptic Bible Interest in enhancing biblical studies by editing polyglot editions in the late 1500s brought the Coptic version of the Bible into focus. This spurred the acquisition of Coptic manuscripts, which began first in Europe and later moved toward the actual source of these manuscripts, Egypt. In a published introduction to the Coptic Old Testament, Takla proposed a nine-​ stage scheme to summarize the research on the subject. Though it was intended to address the Old Testament, it is entirely valid for the New Testament as well. These nine stages are as follows:6

1. Polyglot Stage, 16th–​17th Centuries [S1] 2. Early Bohairic Publication Stage, AD 1701–​1784 [S2] 3. Early Sahidic Publication Stage, AD 1785–​1815 [S3] 4. The English Missionary Work in Egypt Stage, AD 1815–​1852 [S4] 5. Early Biblical Scholarship Stage, AD 1853–​1879 [S5] 6. Wholesale Publication Stage, AD 1880–​1918 [S6] 7. Interwar Stage, AD 1919–​1945 [S7] 8. Post–​World War II Stage, AD 1946–​1969 [S8] 9. Modern Stage, AD 1970–​Present time [S9]

The type of biblical manuscripts available in Europe, at a particular time period, dictated the choice of dialect published and/​or studied. During the initial five stages, scholars predominantly focused on editing and studying Bohairic texts. With the use of Sahidic and Fayyumic manuscripts in the third stage, such dominance by Bohairic was challenged but not broken. In the sixth stage, Sahidic texts were eclipsed by Bohairic permanently. Also, other dialects such as Fayyumic and Akhmimic, began to take prominence in that stage. Middle Egyptian or Mesokemic texts became prominent in the eighth stage along with other, though minor, dialects. Also, in the eighth and ninth stages, Coptology emerged as an academic discipline and with it came specialized scholars. So far, the Bohairic New Testament has been adequately published by George Horner over a century ago. This is not the case for his publication of the Sahidic New Testament, which still awaits a comparable quality publication like that of the Bohairic. As for the Old Testament, nothing resembling Horner’s Bohairic New Testament in quality and quantity has been published to date.

Publication of the Coptic Bible As mentioned earlier, the Coptic Bible was never transmitted in any single manuscript and in the case of the Old Testament, is preserved only in an incomplete and at times very fragmentary state. Publications of the Coptic biblical texts reflect this painful reality. This

6 

For more details on what occurred in these nine stages, consult Takla 2007, c­ hapter 2.

86   Hany N. Takla section discusses the main publications with significant Coptic text edition in any of the known dialects. The discussion is arranged in ten divisions, with reference to the stage numbers listed earlier. Due to the fragmentary state of many of the books, especially for non-​Bohairic text, scholars published valuable lists for what has been published and where. The first list was by Henri Hyvernat (1896–​7). This was followed by the most comprehensive of these lists by Arthur Adolphe Vaschalde, who published a series of articles listing every text published in each of the known dialects, identified by book and verse, collection, and publication (Vaschalde 1919–​22, 1930–​32, 1933). These lists were followed by two less comprehensive, though very useful, list publications by Walter C. Till (1959–​60) and Peter Nagel (1989). Franz-​Jurgen Schmitz and Gerd Mink then began to refine these listings with regard to the Sahidic New Testament in 1986, emphasizing the grouping of the many dismembered manuscripts in the different collection around the world (Schmitz-​Mink 1986–​91). Karlheinz Schüssler took over the publishing task of these lists with a modified editing method, which also included Old Testament manuscripts (Schüssler 1995–​2016). Currently, there are two projects dealing with Coptic Bible started in twenty-​first-​century Germany—​Münster for the New Testament, and Göttingen for the Sahidic Old Testament (Feder and Richter 2020). The responsibility for recovering the Bohairic Old Testament will most likely fall on the shoulders of the Copts, either in Egypt or in the Diaspora. A roadmap for such work was published earlier in this century by Takla (2001, 2007). Now, let us look at what was published and where. Worthy of mention are the earliest publications of Bohairic texts beginning with a Psalm publication by Theodorus Petraeus (1663)7 and continuing to our present time. In summary, there is only one comprehensive edition of the New Testament in Bohairic in four volumes by George Horner (1897–​1905). Although his Sahidic version is published in seven volumes, it consisted of putting manuscript fragments together but without proper codicological information, which was not available in his time. 1. Pentateuch: In Sahidic Genesis and Exodus are in a very fragmentary state. Most of what has been published can be found in the major WM fragments editions of Agostino Ciasca (1885–​9) from the Vatican Borgia collection [S6], Gaston Maspero’s 1892 edition of the Paris fragments [S6], Carl Wessely’s 1909–​14 edition of the Vienna fragments [S6], and Johannes Schleifer’s 1909–​14 edition of the British Library fragments [S6]. Louis Th. Lefort’s 1940 edition of the Louvain fragments from Genesis and Exodus is the only other significant Sahidic edition [S7]. Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy were published in facsimile form by Hyvernat (Hyvernat 1922, v.I) [S7]. Ernest A. Wallis Budge published a nearly complete text of Deuteronomy from a manuscript in the British Library (Budge 1912) [S6]. Many of the other fragments of these books can be found in the WM editions cited earlier. In Bohairic the complete text was published first by David Wilkins from manuscripts in the Vatican, Paris, and Oxford (Wilkins 1731) [S2]. Paul de Lagarde published the same books from a manuscript that Henry Tattam transcribed (de Lagarde 1867) [S6]. Due to the problems found in de Lagarde’s edition, Melvin Peter reedited these books from the original

7

  Psalm 1 in Bohairic, Arabic, and Latin.

The Coptic Bible   87 manuscripts. However only Genesis (1985), Exodus (1986), and Deuteronomy (1983) were published [S9]. 2. Historical Books: In Sahidic Herbert Thompson published a palimpsest from the British Library containing most of what we know from the books of Joshua, Judges, Judith, and a complete text of Ruth (Thompson 1911) [S6]. Another complete version of Ruth was published by Louise Shier from a University of Michigan manuscript (Shier 1942) [S7]. A substantial portion of Joshua was published from a manuscript from the Dishna collection in two publications by Kasser and Arthur F. Shore (Kasser 1963; Shore 1963) [S8]. The complete texts of Samuel I and II were published by James Drescher from a manuscript in the Hamuli collection (Drescher 1970) [S9]. The surviving text of Tobit was published by Takla based on the fragments that had been published of this book in the past [S9]. Fragments of I and II Kings and I and II Chronicles are mainly found in the WM editions cited earlier. In Bohairic all that is known from these books is preserved in different lectionaries and services in the Coptic Church. These lections were published by de Lagarde from extracts from manuscripts in the Göttingen University Library (de Lagarde 1879) [S5]. 3. Poetic Books: In Sahidic an almost complete edition of Job was published by Ciasca [S6]. A complete text of Psalms was published by Budge from a manuscript in the British Library (Budge 1989) [S6]. A substantial part of Psalms was published by Alfred Rahlfs, student of de Lagarde, from a Berlin manuscript (Rahlfs 1901) [S6]. A complete edition of Proverbs was published by William Worrell from a University of Chicago manuscript (Worrell 1931) [S7]. The complete text of Ecclesiastes was published by Ciasca from the Borgia collection [S6]. Another edition of this book was made by Shier, cited earlier, from a University of Michigan collection in addition to a complete text of Song of Songs [S7]. Another publication of the Song of Songs from the Dishna collection was published by Kasser and Philippe Luisier (Kasser and Luisier 2012) [S9]. What has survived from the books of Wisdom of Solomon and Wisdom of Ben Sira was published by de Lagarde in 1883 [S6]. In Bohairic a complete text of Job was published by Tattam from a manuscript in Malta (Tattam 1846) [S4] and by Emile Porcher from manuscripts in Paris (Porcher 1924) [S7]. The Psalms were first published by Raphael Tukhi in Rome (Tukhi 1744) [S2].8 Ekladius Labib published a text of Psalms and Odes in Cairo (Labib 1897) [S6], which is significant because it preserves the verse number used in all the Psalm lections used in the Coptic Church lectionaries. The part of Proverbs preserved in Bohairic was published by Urbain Bouriant from the Cairo Patriarchal Library (Bouriant 1882) [S6]. Another publication of the same portion of the text was done by the Coptic Catholic bishop Agabius Bsciai in Rome (Bsciai 1881, 1886) [S6], and a third publication was done by Oswald H. E. KHS-​Burmester in 1930 [S7]. He also published the lections from the books of Wisdom of Solomon and Wisdom of Ben Sira (Burmester 1934–​5) [S7]. In Fayyumic Kasser and Hans-​Martin Schenke published the complete text of Ecclesiastes (Kasser-​Schenke 2003) [S9]. A second

8  This publication was republished without Psalm 151 by Roger Watts in 1826 as part of the help that the Church of England was giving to the Coptic Church in the first half of the nineteenth century.

88   Hany N. Takla publication of this book along with the Song of Songs was made by Bernd Diebner and Kasser from a Greek-​ Sahidic manuscript in Hamburg (Diebner-​ Kasser 1989) [S9]. In Mesokemic Gawdat Gabra edited the complete text of the Cairo Modil Codex of the Psalms (Gabra 1995) [S9]. In Akhmimic Alexander Böhlig published the complete text of Proverbs kept in the Berlin State Library (Böhlig 1958) [S8]. In Dialect P Kasser published a substantial portion of the Book of Proverbs from the Dishna collection (Kasser 1960) [S8]. 4. Major Prophets: In Sahidic Hyvernat published the complete text of Isaiah in facsimile (Hyvernat 1922 v.III) [S6]. The last portion of the book was published by Kasser from the Dishna collection (Kasser 1965b) [S8]. Frank Feder published what has survived from Jeremiah, along with a complete text of Lamentations, Baruch, and the Letter of Jeremiah (Feder 2002) [S9]. What has survived from Ezekiel and Daniel was published among the WM publications cited earlier. In Bohairic Tattam published a complete edition of all the books in this group (Tattam 1852) [S4]. Although imperfect, it is still the standard edition of these books. For Daniel, Joseph Bardelli’s earlier edition is closer to the arrangement found in the Coptic tradition of this book (Bardelli 1849) [S4]. In Fayyumic the remaining fragments of a single manuscript from the WM collections was published primarily by Etienne Quatrèmere of the Paris WM fragments (Quatremère 1808) [S3], and Wolf F. Engelbreth of the other fragments in the Borgia collection (Engelbreth 1811) [S3]. This included parts of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and a full text of Lamentations. 5. Minor Prophets: In Sahidic there is only one manuscript from the WM collection that would have contained these twelve books. What has survived is primarily published in the WM fragments editions mentioned earlier. A complete text of Jonah was published by Budge in 1912, cited earlier, from a more ancient manuscript [S6]. In Bohairic Quatremère first published these texts from the Paris collection (Quatremère 1810) [S3]. This was followed by Tattam’s edition in Oxford (Tattam 1836) [S4]. In Akhmimic there was one manuscript that was split between the Vienna and the Paris collections that preserved almost the entire text. Bouriant was first to publish the smaller portion kept in Paris (Bouriant 1897) [S6], which was later republished by Michel Malinine in a better edition (Malinine 1950) [S8]. The greater portion in Vienna was published by Wessely along with Bouriant’s edition in parallel with the previously published Sahidic fragments from WM and Tattam’s Bohairic edition (Wessely 1915) [S6]. Till republished a better edition of only the Vienna portion of this manuscript (Till 1927) [S7]. 6. Gospels: In Sahidic most of the known fragments were published first by Horner in his edition of the Sahidic New Testament (Horner 1911–​24, v.1–​3) [S6–​7]. Hyvernat’s facsimile edition of the Hamuli collection included one volume of complete text of the Gospels (Hyvernat v.IV) [S7]. Hans Quecke published complete texts of the Gospels of Mark (Quecke 1972), Luke (Quecke 1977), and John (Quecke 1984) with variants from the Hamuli collection [S9]. These texts came from the Dishna collection and were kept at the Barcelona’s Palau Ribes collection. Gonzalo Aranda Perez published the Gospels of Matthew (Perez 1984) and Mark (Perez 1988) from the Hamuli collection [S9]. In Bohairic the first edition of all the Gospels was included in Wilkins’s 1716 edition of the Bohairic New Testament from the Oxford Bodleian

The Coptic Bible   89 collection [S2]. The Church of England published the four Gospels with a parallel Arabic text in 1829 [S4] for the benefit of the Coptic Church and then a revised text in 1847–​52 [S4]. Tattam was the editor of the Coptic text of both editions (Tattam 1829, 1847–​52). The standard edition of all four Gospels was published by Horner in his edition of the Bohairic New Testament in (Horner 1898–​1905, v.1–​2) [S6]. A substantial portion of the Gospel of John in Old Bohairic was published by Kasser from the Dishna collection (Kasser 1958) [S8]. It was republished by Daniel Sharp with extensive study of the manuscript and its facsimile with text transcription on opposite pages (Sharp 2016) [S9]. In Lycopolitan Thompson published a large portion of the Gospel of St. John (Thompson 1924) [S7]. A parallel text of a portion of this Gospel from the Dishna collection was published by Wolf-​Peter Funk and Richard Smith (Brashear 1990: 57–​123) [S9]. In Mesokemic Schenke published the complete text of the Gospel of St. Matthew (Schenke 1981) [S9]. This was followed by another edition of a nearly complete text of the same Gospel from Oslo (Schenke 2001) [S9]. Elinore Husselmann published a nearly complete text of the Gospel of St. John in the same dialect (Husselmann 1962) [S8].9 7. Pauline Epistles: In Sahidic Horner was the first to publish most of the known fragments of these epistles (Horner 1911–​24 v.4–​5) [S6–​7]. The Hyvernat facsimile edition included two volumes of complete text of these Epistles (Hyvernat 1922 v.VIII–​IX) [S7]. The standard complete edition was made by Thompson from a manuscript kept in Dublin (Thompson 1932) [S7]. In Bohairic the first edition of all these epistles was included in Wilkins’s edition, cited earlier [S2]. Tattam also published the second volume of his New Testament in 1852 that included these epistles, cited earlier [S4]. The standard edition of all the Pauline Epistles was published by Horner (Horner 1898–​1905 v.3) [S6]. In Mesokemic Orlandi published a fragmentary text of the first ten epistles from a manuscript kept in Milan (Orlandi 1974) [S9]. 8. Catholic Epistles: In Sahidic Horner was the first to publish most of the known fragments of these epistles (Horner 1911–​24 v.7) [S6–​7]. Hyvernat’s facsimile edition included one complete text of these Epistles (Hyvernat 1922 v.X) [S7]. Schüssler published the standard complete edition of these texts from the Hamuli collection (Schüssler 1991) [S9]. In Bohairic the first edition of all these epistles was included in Wilkins’s edition. Tattam also included them in volume 2 of his edition cited earlier [S4]. The standard edition of all the Catholic Epistles was published by Horner (1898–​1905 v.4) [S6]. In Fayyumic Kasser and Schenke published the complete text of 2 Peter and 1 John in 2003 from a University of Michigan Library manuscript, cited earlier [S9]. 9. Acts: In Sahidic Horner was the first to publish most of the known fragments of these epistles (Horner 1911–​24 v.6) [S6–​7]. The standard complete edition was made by Thompson in the same 1932 publication cited earlier [S7]. In Bohairic, like the Catholic Epistles, the text appears in Wilkins [S2], Tattam [S4], and Horner’s volume 4 [S6] editions cited earlier. In Mesokemic Schenke published the entire first half of the book from a manuscript in the Pierpont Morgan Library (Schenke 1991) [S9].

9 

This edition was originally labeled as Fayyumic Coptic.

90   Hany N. Takla 10. Revelation: In Sahidic Substantial parts are published by Heinrich Goussen from a Berlin manuscript (Goussen 1895) [S6], but the most complete text published is found in Budge’s 1912 edition, cited earlier [S6].10 In Bohairic, like the Catholic Epistles and Acts, the text also appears in Wilkins [S2], Tattam [S4], and Horner’s volume 4 [S6] editions cited earlier.

The Value and Limitation of the Coptic Version The value of the Coptic translation of the bible lies in the quality and the literal nature of the translation. It serves as evidence for a more ancient Greek exemplar that may not have survived the tests of time and the cycles of persecution. This quality is also derived from the strong knowledge of Greek that was present in Egypt and how the understanding of some of the ambiguous, multimeaning, Greek terms was reflected in the less ambiguous Coptic. It is also essential to understanding the literary corpus that the Copts have produced over the centuries. This influence is especially observed in the elaborate liturgical system which the Copts preserved for the most part until this day. The value of being an indication of an older Greek exemplar and/​or literal style can be limited by the genealogy of these manuscripts and the strict word-​order system employed in Coptic. As far as the genesis of these biblical manuscripts, one finds that variants from known Greek texts may not always be a reflection of a different Greek exemplar. It could simply be due to a process of modification of an earlier Coptic text to improve the readability of the Coptic without any reference to a Greek original. The solution to this problem will eventually come when more researchers take closer inspections at these manuscripts. However, the limitation of the strict word-​order has no foreseeable solution at this time.

Conclusion Coptic biblical texts have been published for over three centuries, yet there is no one edition that exists of both Testaments, albeit incomplete. Horner’s edition of the New Testament, in both Bohairic and Sahidic dialects, is still the most complete, although the Sahidic version is much outdated now. In the case of the Old Testament, the situation is much worse; the larger parts of the Bohairic Pentateuch and the Major and Minor Prophets not only are over 150 years old but also are far from accurate. The Sahidic edition tended to involve individual books, and only some can be considered authoritative. Translations in modern languages for the New Testament tend to be simple revisions to the Standard English Bible text, in the case of Horner’s editions. For the Old Testament, it is more complicated since the larger 10  The missing verses from the beginning of the book were published from a different manuscript from WM collection preserved in Paris in a 1941 article by Lefort.

The Coptic Bible   91 sections are either found in Latin or not at all. It is hoped that the Münster project for the New Testament and that of Göttingen for the Old Testament can finally yield authoritative editions that can serve as the basis for translations to modern language. As far as the Coptic version, providing a witness to the original Greek on the New Testament especially, Wisse expressed it best: “We have scarcely begun to reap the harvest offered by the Coptic versions (Wisse 1995: 139).

References Editions Böhlig, A. 1958. Der Achmimische Proverbientext nach Ms. Berol. Orient Oct. 987. Teil I: Text und Rekonstruktion der Sahidischen Vorlage. München. Bouriant, U. 1882. “Les Proverbs de Salomon; Version Copte Publiée d’après deux Manuscrits Faisant Partie de la Bibliothèque du Patriarche Copte-​Jacobite du Caire.” Recueil de travaux relatifs à la philology et à l’archéologie égyptiennes 3:129–​147. Bouriant, U. 1897. “Fragments de Petits Prophètes en Dialecte de Panopolis.” Recueil de travaux relatifs à la philology et à l’archéologie égyptiennes 19:1–​12. Brashear, W., et al. 1990. The Chester Beatty Codex AC. 1390. Mathematical School Exercises in Greek and John 10:7–​13:38 in Subachmimic. Leuven and Paris. Bsciai, A. 1881. “Liber Proverbiorum Coptice.” Revue Egyptologique 2:356–​368. Bsciai, A. 1886. Proverbia Salomonis Boheirice et Arabice. Rome. Budge, E.A.W. 1898. The Earliest Known Coptic Psalter in the Dialect of Upper Egypt, Edited from the Unique Papyrus Codex Oriental 5000 in the British Museum. London. Budge, E.A.W. 1912. Coptic Biblical Texts in the Dialect of Upper Egypt. London. Burmester, O.H.E. Khs. 1934–​5. “The Bohairic Pericopae of Wisdom and Sirach.” Biblica 15:451–​465; 16:35–​57, 141–​174. Ciasca, A. 1885–​1889. Sacrorum Bibliorum Fragments Copto-​Sahidica Musei Borgiani Iussu et Sumptibus S. Congregationis de Propaganda Fide Edita. 2 vols. Rome. Diebner, B.J., and R. Kasser. 1989. Hamburger Papyrus Bil. I—​Die Alttestamentlichen Texte des Papyrus Bilinguis 1 Der Staat-​und Universitätsbibliothek Hamburg—​Canticum Canticorum (Coptice), Lamentationes Ieremiae (Coptice), Ecclesiastes (Graece et Coptice). Genève. Drescher, J. 1970. The Coptic (Sahidic) Version of Kings I, II (Samuel I, II). Corpus Scriptorium Christianorum Orientalium (CSCO) 313, Scriptores Coptici (SC) 35 (text). Leuven. Engelbreth, W.F. 1811. Fragmenta Basmurico-​Coptica Veteris et Novi Testamenti quae in Museo Borgiano Velitris asservantur. Copenhagen. Feder, F. 2002. Biblia Sahidica, Ieremias, Lamentationes (Threni) Epistula Ieremiae et Baruch. (=​Texte und Untersuchungen 147). Berlin and New York. Gabra, G. 1995. Der Psalter im Oxyrhynchitischen (Mesokemischen/​Mittelägyptischen) Dialekt. Heidelberg. Goussen, H. 1895. Apocalypsis S. Iohannis apostoli versio sahidica. (=​Studia Theologica 1). Leipzig. Horner, G. 1898–​1905. The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Northern Dialect, Otherwise Called Memphitic and Bohairic. 4 vols. Oxford. Horner, G. 1911–​1924. The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Southern Dialect, Otherwise Called Sahidic and Thebaic. 7 vols. Oxford.

92   Hany N. Takla v.I Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. v.II I & II Samuel. v.III Isaiah. v.IV Four Gospels. v.V. Gospel of John. v.VI Bohairic Gospels of Matthew and Mark. v.VII Bohairic Gospels of Luke and John. v.VIII Epistles of Paul. v.IX Epistles of Paul. v.X Catholic Epistles. Husselmann, E.M. 1962. The Gospel of John in Fayumic Coptic (P. Mich. Inv. 3521). Ann Arbor. Hyvernat, H. 1922. Bibliothecae Pierpont Morgan Codices Coptici Photographice Expressi. Rome. 56 v. in 63 parts. Facsimile Edition. Kasser, R. 1958. Papyrus Bodmer III, Evangile de Jean et Genèse I–​IV, 2 en Bohairique. CSCO 177, SC 25. Louvain. Kasser, R. 1960. Papyrus Bodmer VI (Proverbes I 1–​XXI 4). CSCO 194–​5, SC 27–​28. Leuven. Kasser, R. 1961. Papyrus Bodmer XVI. Exode I–​XV,21 en Sahidique. Bibliotheca Bodmeriana. Cologne/​Geneva. Kasser, R. 1962. Papyrus Bodmer XVIII. Deuteronome I–​ X,7 en Sahidique. Bibliotheca Bodmeriana. Cologne/​Geneva. Kasser, R. 1963. Papyrus Bodmer XXI. Josué VI, 16–​25, VII, 6–​XI, 23, XII, 1–​2, 19–​XXIII, 7, 15–​ XXIV, 23 en Sahidique. Bibliotheca Bodmeriana. Cologne/​Geneva. Kasser, R. 1964. Papyrus Bodmer XXII et Mississippi Coptic Codex II. Jérémie XL, 3–​LII, 34, Lamentations, Epître de Jérémie, Baruch I,1–​V,5 en Sahidique. Bibliotheca Bodmeriana. Cologne/​Geneva. Kasser, R. 1965. Papyrus Bodmer XXIII. Esaie XLVII,1–​LXVI,24 en Sahidique. Bibliotheca Bodmeriana. Cologne/​Geneva. Kasser, R., and P. Luisier 2012. “P. Bodmer XL: ‘Cantique des Cantiques’ en copte saïdique.” Orientalia 81.3:149–​201. Kasser, R., and H.-​M. Schenke. 2003. Papyrus Michigan 3520 und 6868(a) Ecclesiastes, Erster Johannes und Zweiter Petrusbrief im Fayumischen Dialekt. Berlin and New York. Labib, E. 1897. ⲡⲓϫⲱⲙ ⲛ̀ⲧⲉ ⲛⲓⲯⲁⲗⲙⲟⲥ ⲛ̀ⲧⲉ ⲇⲁⲩⲓⲇ ⲡⲓⲡⲣⲟⲫⲏⲧⲏⲥ ⲟⲩⲟϩ ⲡⲓⲟⲩⲣⲟ ⲛⲉⲙ ⲛⲓϩⲱⲇⲏ. (The Book of the Psalms of David the Prophet and the King and the Odes). Cairo. de Lagarde, P. 1867. Der Pentateuch Koptisch. Leipzig. de Lagarde, P. 1879. Brüchstucke de Koptischen Übersetzung des Alten Testaments. (=​ Abhandlungen der König. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen XXIV). Göttingen. Lefort, L. Th. 1937–​8. “Coptica Lovaniensia.” Le Muséon 50:5–​52; 51:1–​32. Lefort, L. Th. 1940. Les Manuscrits Coptes de l’Université de Louvain. I. Texts Littéraires. Leuven. Lefort, L. Th. 1953. “Fragments Bibliques en Dialecte Akhmîmique.” Le Muséon 66:1–​30. Malinine, M. 1950. “Fragment d’une Version Achmimique des Petits Prophètes.” In Coptic Studies in Honor of Walter Ewing Crum (=​Bulletin of Byzantine Institute, 2). 365–​4 15. Boston. Orlandi, T. 1974. Lettere di San Paolo in Copto-​Ossirinchita. Milano. Maspero, G. 1892. Fragments de la Version Thébaine de l’Ancien Testament. (=​Mémoires Publiés par les membres de la Mission Archéologique Française au Caire, VI Fascicule 1). Paris 1892.

The Coptic Bible   93 Perez, G.A. 1984. El Evangelio de San Mateo en Copto Sahidico. Texto de M 569, Estudio Preliminar Y Aparato Critico. Madrid. Perez, G.A. 1988. El Evangelio de San Marcos en Copto Sahidico. Texto de M 569 Y Aparato Critico. Madrid. Peters, M.K.H. 1983. A Critical Edition of the Coptic Bohairic Pentateuch. Vol 5. Deuteronomy. Atlanta. Peters, M.K.H. 1985. A Critical Edition of the Coptic Bohairic Pentateuch. Vol. 1. Genesis. Atlanta. Peters, M.K.H. 1986. A Critical Edition of the Coptic Bohairic Pentateuch. Vol. 2. Exodus. Atlanta. Petraeus, T. 1663. Psalterium Davidis in Lingua Copta seu Aegyptiaca, una cum Versione Arabica Nunc Primum in Latin Versum et in Lucem Editem. Leiden. Porcher, E. 1924. Le Livre de Job: Version Copte Bohairique. Patrologia Orientalis. Reprint 1990. Brepols. Quatremère, E. 1808. Recherches Critiques et Historiques sur la Langue et la Litterature de l’Égypte. Paris. Quatremère, E. 1810. “Daniel et les douze petits prophetes. Manuscrits coptes de la Bibliothèque Imperiale no. 2, Saint-​Germain no. 21.” Notices et extraits des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque impériale et autres bibliothèques Publiés par l’institut de France 8:220–​289. Quecke, H. 1972. Das Markusevangelium Saïdisch. Text der Handschrift PPalau Rib. Inv.-​Nr. 182 mit den Varianten der Handschrift M 569. Barcelona. Quecke, H. 1977. Das Lucasevangelium Saïdisch. Text der Handschrift PPalau Rib. Inv.-​Nr. 181 mit den Varianten der Handschrift M 569. Barcelona. Quecke, H. 1984. Das Johannesevangelium Saïdisch. Text der Handschrift PPalau Rib. Inv.-​Nr. 183 mit den Varianten der Handschrift M 569. Barcelona. Rahlfs, A. 1901. Die Berliner Handschrift des Sahidischen Psalters. (=​Abhandlungen der Königl. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, Philologisch-​Historische Klasse, Neu Folge, Band IV, No. 4). Berlin. Schenke, H.-​M. 1981. Das Matthäus-​Evangelium im Mittelägyptischen Dialekt des Koptischen (Codex Scheide). Berlin. Schenke, H.-​M. 1991. Apostelgeschichte 1, 1–​15, 3 im Mittelägyptischen Dialekt des Koptischen (Codex Glazier). Berlin. Schenke, H.-​M. 2001. Coptic Papyri. v.1. Das Matthäus-​Evangelium im Mittelägyptischen Dialekt des Koptischen (Codex Schoyen). Oslo 2001. Schleifer, J. 1909. Sahidische Bibelfragmente aus dem Britisch Museum zu London, I. (=​ Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, Philosophisch-​ Historische Klasse, vol. 162.6). Vienna. Schleifer, J. 1911. Sahidische Bibelfragmente aus dem Britisch Museum zu London, II. (=​ Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserl. Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, Philosophisch-​Historische Klasse; vol. 164). Vienna. Schleifer, J. 1912. Bruchstücke der Sahidischen Bibelübersetzung. (=​Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserl. Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, Philosophisch-​Historische Klasse, vol. 170.1). Vienna. Schleifer, J. 1914a. “Review of Budge’s Coptic Biblical Texts in the Dialect of Upper Egypt.” Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 28:253–​260, 307–​329. Schleifer, J. 1914b. Sahidische Bibelfragmente aus dem Britisch Museum zu London, III. Psalmenfragmente. Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserl. (=​Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, Philosophisch-​Historische Klasse, vol. 173.5). Vienna.

94   Hany N. Takla Schüssler, K. 1991. Die Katholischen Briefe in der Koptischen (Sahidischen) Version. CSCO 528, SC 45. Leuven. Sharp, D.B. 2016. Papyrus Bodmer III: An Early Coptic Version of the Gospel of John and Genesis. Berlin and Boston. Shier, L.A. 1942. “Old Testament on Vellum.” In William H. Worrell (ed.), Coptic Texts in the University of Michigan Collection. 23–​167. Ann Arbor. Shore, A.F. 1963. Joshua I–​VI and Other Passages in Coptic: Edited from a Fourth-​Century Sahidix Codex in the Chester Beatty Library, Dublin. Dublin. Takla, H.N. 1996–​ 7. “The Sahidic Book of Tobit.” Bulletin of the Saint Shenouda the Archimandrite Coptic Society 3:1–​25. Tattam, H. 1836. Duodecim Prophetarum Minorum Libros in Lingua Aegyptiaca Vulgo Coptica seu Memphitica ex manuscripto Johannis Lee, J.C.D. Collatos Latine Edidit. Oxford. Tattam, H. 1846. The Ancient Coptic Version of Job the Just Translated into English and Edited. London. Tattam, H. 1847–​52. The New Testament in Coptic and Arabic. 2 vols. London. Tattam, H. 1852. Prophetas Maiores in Dialecto Linguae Aegyptiacae Memphitica seu Coptica Edidit cum Versione Latina. 2 vols. Oxford. Thompson, H. 1911. A Coptic Palimpsest Containing Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Judith and Esther, in the Sahidic Dialect. Oxford. Thompson, H. 1924. The Gospel of St. John According to the Earliest Coptic Manuscript. London. Thompson, H. 1932. The Coptic Version of the Acts of the Apostles, and the Pauline Epistles in the Sahidic Dialect. Cambridge. Till, W. 1927. Die Achmimische Version der Zwölf Kleinen Propheten. Codex Rainerianus. Wien. (=​Coptica IV). Copenhagen. Till, W. 1959–​60. “Coptic Biblical Texts Published after Vaschalde’s Lists.” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 42:220–​240. Wessely, C. 1907. Sahidisch-​Griechische Psalmenfragmente. (=​Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserl. Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien; Philosophisch-​Historische Klass, vol. 155.1). Vienna. Wessely, C. 1909. Griechische und Koptische Texte Theologischen Inhalts I. (=​Studien zur Palaeographie und Papyruskunde IX). Leipzig. Wessely, C. 1911. Griechische und Koptische Texte Theologischen Inhalts II. (=​Studien zur Palaeographie und Papyruskunde XI). Leipzig. Wessely, C. 1912. Griechische und Koptische Texte Theologischen Inhalts III. (=​Studien zur Palaeographie und Papyruskunde XII). Leipzig. Wessely, C. 1914. Griechische und Koptische Texte Theologischen Inhalts IV. (=​Studien zur Palaeographie und Papyruskunde XV). Leipzig. Wessely, C. 1915. Duodecim Prophetarum Minorum Versionis Achmimicae Codex Rainerianus. (=​Studien zur Palaeographie und Papyruskunde XVI). Leipzig. Wilkins, D. 1716. Novum Testamentum Aegyptium Vulgo Copticum ex MSS Bodleianis Descripsit, cum Vaticanis et Parisiensibus Contulit, et in Latinum Sermonen Convertit. Oxford. Wilkins, D. 1731. Quinque Libri Moysis Prophetae in Lingua Aegyptiaca ex MSS Vaticano, Parisiensi et Bodleiano Descripsit et Latine Vertit. London. Worrell, W.H. 1931. The Proverbs of Solomon in Sahidic Coptic According to the Chicago Manuscript. Chicago.

The Coptic Bible   95 Studies Askeland, C. 2012. John’s Gospel: The Coptic Translations of its Greek Text. Berlin and Boston. Feder, F., and S.G. Richter. 2020. “Reconstructing and Editing the Coptic Bible: The Munster-​ Gottingen Collaboration for a Complete Reconstruction and Edition of the Coptic Sahidic Bible.” Journal of Coptic Studies 22:95–​100. Hyvernat, H. 1896–​7. “Etude sur les Versions Coptes de la Bible.” Revue biblique 5:427–​433, 540–​569; 6:48–​74. Kasser, R. 1965a. “Les dialects coptes et les versions coptes biblique.” Biblica 46:287–​310. Metzger, B.M. 1977. The Early Versions of the New Testament. Their Origin, Transmission, and Limitations. Oxford. Nagel, P. 1989. “Editionen koptischer Bibeltexte seit Till 1960.” Archiv für Papyrusforschung 35:43–​100. Orlandi, T. 1986. “History of Coptic Literature.” In Pearson, B.A. (ed.), Goehring, J. (ed.). Roots of Egyptian Christianity. 51–​81. Philadelphia. Orlandi, T. 2002. “The Library of the Monastery of Saint Shenoute at Atripe.” In Egberts, A. (ed.), Muhs, B.P. (ed.), and van der Vliet, J. (ed.). Perspectives on Panopolis: An Egyptian Town from Alexander the Great to the Arab Conquest. 211–​231. Leiden. Robinson, J.M. 1990. The Pachomian Monastic Library at the Chester Beatty Library and the Bibliotheque Bodmer. (=​Occasional Papers of the Institute for Antiquity and Christianity No. 19). Claremont. Schmitz, F.-​J., and G. Mink. 1986–​1991. Die Sahidischen Handscriften der Evangelien: Liste der Koptischen Hanschriften des Neuen Testaments. Teil 1, 2.1, 2.2. Berlin and New York. Schüssler, K. 1995–​2015. Biblia Coptica—​Das Sahidische Alte und Neue Testament. Band 1.1 sa 1–​20, 1.3 sa 21–​48, 1.3 sa 49–​92, 1.4 sa 93–​120, 2.1 sa 121–​184, 2.2 sa 185–​260, 3.1 sa 500–​520, 3.2, sa 521–​540, 3.3 sa 541–​560, 3.4 sa 561–​585, 4.1 sa 586–​620, 4.2 sa 621–​672. 4.3, sa 672–​720. Wiesbaden. Swete, H.B. 1914. An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek. Cambridge. Takla, H.N. 2001. “Compilation of the Coptic Old Testament.” Bulletin of the Saint Shenouda the Archimandrite Coptic Society 6:33–​57. Takla, H.N. 2005. “The Library of the Monastery of St. Shenouda the Archimandrite.” Coptica 4:43–​51. Takla, H.N. 2007. Introduction to the Coptic Old Testament. Los Angeles (=Coptica 6). Takla, H.N. 2008. “Biblical Manuscripts of the Monastery of St. Shenoute the Archimandrite.” In Gabra, G. (ed.), Takla, H.N. (ed.), Christianity and Monasticism in Upper Egypt. V.1 Akhmim and Sohag. 155–​167. Cairo. Takla, H.N. 2014. “The Coptic Bible” In Gabra, G. (ed.), Coptic Civilization. 105–​121. Cairo. Vaschalde, A. 1919–​22. “Ce qui a été publié des versions coptes de la Bible.” Revue biblique 28:220–​243, 513–​531; 29:91–​106, 241–​258; 30:237–​246; 31:81–​88, 234–​258. Vaschalde, A. 1930–​32. “Ce qui a été publié des versions coptes de la Bible. Deuxieme Groupe. Textes Bohairique.” Le Muséon 43:409–​431; 45:117–​156. Vaschalde, A. 1933. “Ce qui a été publié des versions coptes de la Bible. Troisieme Groupe. Textes en Moyen Egyptien. Quatrieme Groupe. Textes Akhmimiques.” Le Muséon 46:299–​313. Wagner, S. 2005. “The Coptic Book of Job and Leiden Or.14.544: An Inquiry into Its Textual History and Its Place with the Book of Proverbs.” St. Shenouda Coptic Quarterly 1.3:3–​23. Wisse, F. 1995. “The Coptic Versions of the New Testament.” In Ehrman, B.D. (ed.), Holmes, M.W. (ed.), The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research—​Essays on the Status Quaestionis—​A Volume in Honor of Bruce M. Metzger. 131–​141. Grand Rapids.

Chapter 6

T ransl ation of t h e Bible into A rme nia n Garegin Hambardzumyan The Armenian translation of the Bible is among the oldest translations. One of the unique characteristics of the Armenian translation of the Bible is that unlike many other versions, which have had a variety of independent retranslations over the years, the Armenian Bible has been passed down through the centuries largely unchanged, reaching us in very few versions. Besides its religious significance, the Armenian translation of the Bible has been praised also for its literary merit: One nineteenth-​century French orientalist, Maturin La Creze, after reading the book of Genesis in Armenian, was so charmed by its elaborate beauty he acclaimed it “the Queen of the translations.”1 When we speak about the Armenian translation of the Bible we need to first establish the historical milieu in which the very first translations were made in Armenia. Between the first and fourth centuries Christianity was slowly spreading within the kingdom of Armenia under heavy persecution. The dawn of the fourth century became a turning point, as Christianity was adopted as the state religion. Prior to AD 405, Greek and Syriac had been used in the churches and religious communities as the official liturgical languages and the Bible was read aloud in those languages;2 now with the increasing establishment of the Armenian Church as the state religion, translation of the Old and New Testaments into the language of the people became a necessity and that required the formation of a distinctively Armenian alphabet, which was formulated by Mesrop Maštoc,3 in AD 405. Almost a century after the beginnings of Christianization, the Armenian church’s vardapets (highly venerated theological teachers), led by Saint Mesrop, now embarked on the extensive project of translating precious Christian commentaries,

1 

Haykakan hamarot hanragitaran (Yerevan, 1999), p. 399. Łazar P῾arpec῾i, Patmowt῾iwn hayoc῾ ew t῾owłt῾ ar̄ Vahan Mamikonean (ed. G. Ter-​Mkrtchyan, S. Malkhasyan, Yerevan, 1982), p. 30. Here P῾arpec῾i speaks only about the use of the Syriac version. Movses Xorenac῾i later mentions the Greek translation as the version then used in Armenian monasteries and churches. 3  Sometimes transliterated Mesrop Mashtots, also known as Saint Mesrop or Mesrob. 2 

Translation of the Bible into Armenian     97 historical, and dogmatic books primarily from the Syriac and Greek, into the new language of the Armenian Church. In a vivid description of the impact and significance of the translation of the Bible into Armenian, the contemporary historian Koriwn likened the moment to the descent from Mount Sinai, suggesting that even Moses returning from the peak with the stone tablets of the commandments, may not have been as happy as Mesrop was when he came out with his work of the translation of the Bible.4 After almost four centuries of turbulence following the glory days of Tigran the Great, this literary foundation-​stone paved the way for Armenians to once again create a distinctive literary culture, which would prove a bulwark against the numerous challenges that future centuries had in store for them, threats such as cultural assimilation, forced conversion to other religions, and even the threat of annihilation. Prior to the formation of the Armenian alphabet, Syriac, Persian, and Hellenic cultures were dominant across Armenia, and it was necessary for the vardapets to be fluent in many languages as well as speaking their native Armenian: It is believed likely that the Bible was translated orally by Mesrop and his disciples as they taught.5 What is certain is that immediately after the translation of the Bible into Armenian, there followed a flood of other translations as Mesrop and his disciples began at once to transform their entire library of related texts and create an exceptional school of theology drawing on the rich traditions of the earliest apostles and texts available from Syriac, Greek, and other languages. The earliest Armenian literary tradition was thus propelled forward into a new and rich cultural movement, which quickly spread and grew across the nation. Naturally, the reading and comprehension of the Bible itself was considered as the most important activity undertaken. Our earliest information about the process of translating of the Bible comes from two fifth-​century historians, Koriwn and Movses Xorenac‛i.6 Both of these scholars were students under St. Mesrop, who had himself directly overseen the first translations, and they record that there were two successive translations of the Holy Bible. In subsequent centuries those two translations and their recensions became subject to minor textual alterations, to the extent that it is currently almost impossible to separate the traces of the two parent versions of the Armenian translations, nevertheless, because of its antiquity and unique philological origins, the Armenian translation has received great attention in academia. A prominent twentieth-​century scholar, Hakob Anasyan, writes the following of the two successive Armenian translations of the Bible: The first one, which was done partly from the Syriac and partly from the Greek texts, was produced in the period between 405–​6 AD, when Armenians created the alphabet, and the Council of Ephesus (431 AD). The second translation was a revision of the previous one with amendments from the new Greek text brought from Byzantium straight after the Council of Ephesus.7

4 Koriwn,

Vark‛ Maštoc‛i (ed. M. Abeghyan, Yerevan, 1983), p. 104. B. Ełiaian, K῾nnakan patmowt῾iwn sowrbgrakan žamanaknerow, vol. 5, (Anthelias, 1976), p. 1357 6 Xorenac‛i is sometimes transliterated Khorenatsi. 7  H. Anasyan, Haykakan matenagitutyun, vol. 2 (Yerevan, 1976), p. 308. 5 

98   Garegin Hambardzumyan This raises the question, Which books of the Bible were included in that first translation, before the Council of Ephesus? There are indications in a contemporary description of the translation by Koriwn: And starting the translation of the Scriptures first they translated the Proverbs of Solomon which right from the beginning commands “For learning about wisdom and instruction, for understanding words of insight.”8 At that time our blessed and wonderful land of Armenia became truly worthy of admiration, where by the hands of two colleagues, suddenly, in an instant, Moses, the law-​giver, along with the order of the prophets, energetic Paul with the entire phalanx of the apostles, along with Christ’s world-​sustaining gospel, became Armenian-​speaking.9

Koriwn does not list all the books of the Bible individually, and from this one might infer that Maštoc‛ translated only certain books. However in saying, “Moses, the law-​giver, along with the order of the prophets,” Koriwn manifestly meant all of the books from the Pentateuch to the Prophecies, since he also mentions only the first and last books of the New Testament—​from the Gospels to the Epistles of Paul. (Noteworthy here that after the Epistles, Revelation is not mentioned and was indeed omitted since it did not form part of the Armenian canon before the twelfth century.) Koriwn does not specifically name the book of Acts, yet there is no reason to doubt that it was translated as part of the Biblical canon—​containing as it does, the activities of the “entire phalanx” of the apostles. Movses Xorenac‛i sheds yet more light on the question of what was included in the first canon: “And immediately they embarked on the translation accordingly starting from the Proverbs and including the 22 known ones and the New Testament.”10 Here Xorenac‛i is clearly referring to the Hebrew canon of the Old Testament, according to which the Old Testament consists of twenty-​two books, counting each of the following as one book: Judges and Ruth; 1 Kings and 2 Kings; 3 Kings and 4 Kings; Jeremiah and Lamentations; the Twelve minor prophets; 1 Chronicles and 2 Chronicles; 2 Ezra and 3 Ezra [Nehemiah].11 The use of the Hebrew canon in Armenia is most probably explained by the Syriac use of the Peshitta.12 St. Jerome in his Preface to the Vulgate [Prologus Galeatus] maintained of the Hebrew canon: “Whatever is outside of these is set aside among the apocrypha. Therefore, Wisdom, which is commonly ascribed to Solomon, and the book of Jesus son of Sirach . . . are not in the canon.”13 Although the book of Sirach was frequently quoted in the Talmud and other rabbinic works, it did not make it into the Hebrew canon, being regarded as having been composed too late.14

8 

Koriwn, “Vark‛ Maštoc‛I,” p. 98. Koriwn, “Vark‛ Maštoc‛I,” p. 104. 10  Movses Xorenac‛i, Patmutyun Hayoc‛ (Tbilisi, 1913), p. 327. 11  Anasyan, “Haykakan matenagitutyun,” pp. 311–​312. 12  The Peshitta [Pšīṭtā] remains the standard canonical Bible text for churches in the Syriac tradition. 13  St. Jerome, The Prologue to the Book of Kings, , accessed November 2020 [Translations here based on W. H. Fremantle, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-​Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, second series, vol. 6, St. Jerome; Letters and Select Works (Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1893) 14  D. J. Harrington, “The Old Testament Apocrypha in the Early Church and Today,” in The Canon Debate (eds. Martin McDonald, E. J. Sanders), pp. 196–​210, 2013.. Cf. Josephus, Against Apion, 1, 3–​43. 9 

Translation of the Bible into Armenian     99 According to the Armenian Church and several other church traditions, these first twenty-​two books are called canonical,15 while the rest of the books are known as deuterocanonical16 books. However one should not confuse the significance of the deuterocanonical books with that of the apocryphal books. Eusebius of Caesarea17 in his “Chronicle,” the second part of which in its entirety is extant only in Armenian,18 certainly describes some of the deuterocanonical books as “controverted,” however in view of the Eusebius’s own use of quotations from Baruch and Wisdom, this was not meant as condemnatory, only as a warning to careful interpretation: The scholar Brooke Westcott suggested quite reasonably that Eusebius likely “regarded the Apocrypha’ of the Old Testament in the same light as the books in the New Testament, which were ‘controverted and yet familiarly used by many.’ ”19 Elsewhere the deuterocanonical books long ago gained canonicity within some Christian denominations and now are an inseparable part of the Bible.20 The second phase of translation was begun after the Council of Ephesus, when the disciples of Mesrop Maštoc‛ and Sahak Partev brought from Byzantium to Armenia the Caesarean version of the Greek Septuagint. It was at this time that, in addition to the revision of the old version, the deuterocanonical books were now translated. Koriwn has this to say: Yet blessed Sahak, who had rendered from the Greek language into Armenian all the ecclesiastical books and the wisdom of the church fathers, once more undertook, with Eznak, the comparison of the former random, hurriedly done translations from the then-​available copies with the authentic copies.21

It’s not possible to discern from Koriwn’s words with absolute certainty which Greek text provided the source material for the new translation, but we know from Xorenac‛i that Maštoc‛ and Sahak’s disciples brought back the papers and the six canons22 approved by the Council of Ephesus together with this authentic example of the Holy Scriptures. Sahak the Great and Maštoc‛, accepting this example of the Scriptures, returned once more to begin

15 

Nakhakanon, “primary.” Yerkrordakanon, “secondary.” 17  Circa 260–​340. Eusebius became bishop of Caesarea in around AD 314. 18  J. Karst, “The Armenian Version of Eusebius’ Chronicon,” American Journal of Theology, Vol 20, No. 2 (1916), pp. 295–​297. 19  B. F. Westcott, The Bible in the Church: A Popular Account of the Collection and Reception of the Holy Scriptures in the Christian Churches (London: MacMillan & Co., 1896), p. 153. 20  Justin Martyr (2nd c. AD), let us know that there had been books in the Septuagint translation later removed by some Jewish rabbis (St. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 72). It is not certain, though, whether he speaks about the deuterocanonical books or possibly other apocryphal books that were excised later by some Christian churches. The Roman Catholic Church accepted the deuterocanonical books, officially including them in Jerome’s Vulgate. It is difficult to pinpoint the earliest date when the Armenian Church accepted these books, but it is clear from the canon that it happened no later than the first half of the fifth century. 21  Koriwn, “Vark‛ Maštoc‛I,” p. 124. 22 Xorenac‛i does not say eight canons instead of six, because the last two canons, as Dioscorus of Alexandria said and J. Stevenson mentioned in his book, are not properly a canon but determination (ὅρος). J. Stevenson, Creeds, Councils and Controversies: Documents Illustrative of History of the Church A.D. 337–​461 (London: S.P.C.K. 1966), pp. 296–​297. 16 

100   Garegin Hambardzumyan translation from the earliest Peshitta version and adding to that the new material approved at Ephesus.23 The records of Koriwn and Xorenac‛i make it clear that there were certainly two successive translations of the Bible produced for use in the churches and monasteries of Armenia, though in some places only the first version was preserved. Today in book depositories we can still find manuscripts preserving two different versions of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, 1 and 2 Chronicles, and Sirach that relate to these earliest renditions. Many centuries later, following in this literary heritage, two corresponding versions of the Armenian translations of the Bible were published drawing directly on the earliest texts: The first was published by Fr. Hovhannes Zôhrapean24 in 1805 and the second by Fr. Arsen Bagratowni in 1860, and they will be examined in more detail later. However, while Bagratowni likened the two editions to Sahak-​Mesropian’s first and second translations,25 an attitude later upheld by Nersês Akinian,26 whether this is really so remains a matter for dispute. Some literary historians have viewed the original translation process as the work of two separate and distinct Greek and Syriac schools in Armenia, while others have held it to be a work undertaken by the same group of scholars based on differing needs in various parts of Armenia. The truth is likely to be less straightforward, as a recent scholar, Claude Cox correctly points out in an analysis of the earliest two texts: “Arm1 and Arm2 are not necessarily two distinct stages. There is a tendency to think of Arm1 as Syriac-​ based and Arm2 as a Greek-​based revision of that earlier Syriac-​based work of translation. But the textual situation is more complex than that.”27

The Nineteenth-​C entury Editions and the Formation of the Canon of the Armenian Translation While it is widely accepted that the Armenian translation of the Bible is among the earliest biblical translations, with one recent scholar estimating it as the seventh-​oldest translation,28

23 

Movses Xorenac‛i, “Patmutyun Hayoc,” p. 343. Zôhrapean, like Fr. Bagratowni who later followed him, was a member of the Monastery of the Mekhitarists on San Lazzaro island outside Venice; since its foundation in 1717, it has been and still remains one of the world’s most prominent centers of study for Armenian Language and Culture. 25  A. Bagratowni, Imastutyun Hesua Vordvo Siraqa yev Tught Eremia margarei Ar Geryalsn i Babilon (Venice, 1878), pp. 6–​8. 26  N. Akinian, “Sowrb grk‛i hayerên t‛argmanowt‛iwn,” in Handes amsoreay (Tbilisi, 1935). 27  C. E. Cox, “The Armenian Translation of the Bible,” in Proceedings of the Conference “Where the Only-​Begotten Descended: The Church of Armenia through the Ages,” convened at Ann Arbor, Apr. 1–​4, 2004 (ed. K. Bardakjian). [unixware.mscc.huji.ac.il/​~armenia/​articles/​ArmBib_​tr_​AnnArbor.docx], accessed June 20, 2020. Many scholars have traditionally considered the textual source of Zôhrapean’s text as Arm 1 and the Bagratowni’s text as Arm 2. 28  N. Nersesyan av., k῾hn., Astvacašownč῾ə ew hay mšakowyt῾ə (BSA, Yerevan, 2001), p. 9. 24  Fr.

Translation of the Bible into Armenian     101 the details of the formation of the canon of books contained within it have been the subject of heated academic disagreement. In his 1805 edition of the Bible, Hovhannes Zôhrapean sets out his own evidence for the evolution of the canon of the Armenian translation. Listing all the books of the Old and New Testaments in their conventional places he then puts the deuterocanonical books at the end of his edition. He explains this, saying that this order is followed in the oldest manuscripts of the Armenian Bible.29 Zôhrapean justifies this ordering further, by asserting that the linguistic style of some of the deuterocanonical books, such as the book of Sirach, suggests that they were neither translated by the Holy Translators (Sahak and Mesrop) nor even by their youngest disciples, but date at the very earliest to only the twelfth century.30 Though he does not explicitly mention it in his editorial train of thought, by Zôhrapean’s calculation this would put the translation in the same time period as the translation of the book of Revelation, which was indeed added in the twelfth century when some Armenian scholars, comparing the Armenian canon with the Greek and Latin canons, saw that some books were missing from the Armenian canon. However, at the time he was working, Zôhrapean did not have access to all extant versions of the Armenian translation and on wider comparison his editorial statement can be easily refuted, as references to the deuterocanonical books were already appearing in the tenth-​century works of Xosrov Anjevac‛i and St. Grigor Narekatsi.31 In a statement that throws a further academic question mark over aspects of Zôhrapean’s work, in the 1950s, Lyonnet argued persuasively that the Zôhrapean text does not resemble the Peshitta and is even further from the Latin;32 however, Lyonnet does not single out the Greek text as the main source for Zôhrapean. Taking quite a different stance, Arsen Bagratowni in his 1860 edition, insists that the deuterocanonical books were certainly translated in the fifth century. By his analysis, the style of the language, contrary to the assertions of Hovhannes Zôhrapean, very closely resembles the classical style used by the translators of the fifth century. In his introduction he also insists that the manuscripts he is working from are direct copies of the fifth-​century originals, and accordingly places the deuterocanonical books in their conventional places.33 This position is then later upheld by the German scholar Emil Kautzsch, who consistently regarded the Armenian translation of the deuterocanonical books as one of the oldest and best translations. His argument is that it is very close to the fifth-​century Greek text,34 and that classical language unique to the very first translators is found also in the translation of the deuterocanonical books.

29 Astvacašunč‛

Matean Hin yev Nor Ktakaranac‛, vol. 1 (ed. H. Zôhrapean, Venice, 1805), p. 8. Matean Hin yev Nor Ktakaranac‛, vol. 1 (ed. H. Zôhrapean, Venice, 1805), p. 8. 31  St. Grigor Narekatsi, Speaking with God from the Depths of the Heart, (trans. Thomas J. Samuelian, Yerevan, 2002), p. 99. 32 S. Lyonnet, Les Origines de la Version arménienne et le Diatessaron (Biblica et Orientalia 13; Rome: Pontificio Instituto Biblico, 1950), p. 11. 33  Astvacašunč‛ Matean Hin yev Nor Ktakaranac‛ (ed. A. Bagratowni, Venice, 1860), pp. 681–​704. 34  E. Kautzsc, Die Apokryphen und Pseudeptgraphen des Alten Testaments, B 1 (Tubingen, 1900), p. 249. 30 Astvacašunč‛

102   Garegin Hambardzumyan

Sirach in the Canon of the Armenian Bible Unlike the biblical canons of some other branches of the Christian Church, the book of Sirach has always played an important part in the Armenian canon, forming a part of the earliest translations. In 1927 the Armenian scholar Ełišê Dowrean published an article in the magazine Sion in Jerusalem, in which he claimed to have found the oldest preserved examples of the Armenian translation of Sirach 42–​46. Dowrean did not dispute the general belief that Sirach was translated into Armenian in the fifth century AD but moved the date with more precision to the last quarter of that century, asserting, “There is no doubt that the chapters we published are part of the oldest translation. We think that Sirach was translated in the last quarter of the 5th century, because its language is weaker in comparison with the translation of the Book of Proverbs.”35 To support his assertions Dowrean relies on philological analysis of several classical Armenian words that appear, such as barebanel in 22:19. These are early compound words to express complex concepts, for example “barebanel” means to declare a word of glorification and is used instead of the more common verb to “paravorel” “to glorify.” Dowrean is far from alone in his close philological studies, prior to World War II, the Holy Land remained a scholarly battleground for canonical debate, and further arguments against some of the deuterocanonical books being translated in the fifth century were presented by C῾ovakan in an article published in the 1936 edition of Sion.36 C῾ovakan concludes in his article that certain deuterocanonical books, such as Sirach, only entered the Armenian canon as late as the seventeenth century, when Oskan of Erevan made a translation of them from the Latin Vulgate. In 1944, Norayr Połarian, a scholar clergyman from Jerusalem, then published research on the references to the Bible in the canons of the Armenian Church, the “Kanonagirk῾ hayoc῾.”37 He particularly examined the groups of canons which are widely known as “The [Second] Apostolic or Clement’s Canons,”38 “the Canons of the Fathers the Followers of the Apostles,”39 and the canons of the Council of Partav. From among what Polarian says, the following points are the most interesting: “In none of the three groups of canons are mentioned the books of the New Testament, in none of them is mentioned the Book of Esther.” After examining the first two points, Norayr Połarian boldly concludes, “It is highly unlikely that the appendix that we find in these groups of canons and especially in the canons of the Council of Partav was a part of the Apostolic Canon and I think that it was added to the group later by a scribe and others just copied from that. Thus, it cannot represent the position of the Armenian Church.”40

35 E.

Dowrean, “Noragyut glukhner Siraqa grqin hin targmanutenen,” in Sion (Jerusalem, 1927), p. 246. 36 C῾ovakan is a pseudonym used by Abp. Norayr Połarian. 37  V. Hakobyan, “Kanonagirk‛ hayoc‛,” vols. 1–​2 (Yerevan, 1964–​7 1). 38  “Erkrord ar῾elakan kam Kłemesi.” 39 “Kanonk‛ Haranc‛ Hetevołac‛.” 40  N. Połarian, ”Siraqi nor glukhner,” in Sion (Jerusalem, 1944), p. 27.

Translation of the Bible into Armenian     103 The following comparison of the 85th canon of the Apostolic canons with the later canons accepted by the Armenian Church can possibly shed light on these problems: Let the following books be counted venerable and holy by all of you, both clergy and laity. Of the Old Testament: the five books of Moses, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua the son of Nun; the Judges; Ruth; four of the Kings; two of Paralipomena (the books of Chronicles); two of Ezra; one of Job; one of Psalms; one of Solomon: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel. And besides these you are recommended to teach your young persons the Wisdom of the very learned Sirach.41

This “appendix” may happen to appear by accident only among the Partav canons: which will be discussed in what follows. But the fact that the appendix was a part of the Apostolic canons and those of the “Fathers” can be seen from a detailed comparison of the Old Armenian texts with the Greek originals, which was done by Vazgen Hakobyan in his edition of the “Kanonagirk῾ hayoc῾.”42 Hakobyan’s research reveals that those parts of the canons translated from the Greek original texts, which were harder to adopt within the Armenian environment, had, during the centuries, become subject to redactions. Thus, canon 85 of the Apostolic Canons is not merely a later addition from Greek but indeed is and likely was officially accepted by the Armenian Church from the earliest times. Turning to the exhortation in this canon addressed to both clergy and lay people about the books that they must read,43 there are variety of translations found in manuscripts and there are manuscripts in which this passage is missing. It states, “Ełic‛i jez amenec‛un ekełec‛akanac‛ yev ašxarhakanac‛ paštel girq Surb Hin yev Nor Ktakaranac‛” (“Let the following books be counted venerable and sacred by all of you, both clergy and laity”) and then it gives the names of the books starting from the Pentateuch and finishing with the four prophets. After listing these books the canon orders the following, “Yev artak‛ust patgamavoresc‛i ar i husuc‛anel jez manunsn zusman bazum zSirak‛ imastno,” (“besides these you are recommended to teach your young persons the Wisdom of the very learned Sirach”).44 There is no explanation why the Books of the New Testament are missing from this list. The entire canon No. 85 is missing from almost all known Armenian manuscripts and is only found in the manuscript No. 740 of the Etchmiadzin depository with some books missing from the Old Testament and omitting the whole New Testament. Likewise, the list of books of the New Testament is missing from the canons attributed to the Fathers the Followers of the Apostles.45 Listing the books of the Old Testament including the poetic and wisdom books, the authors of the canons mention “Soghomon G” (Solomon 3), which means the three books of Solomon: Song of Songs, the Proverbs, and the Wisdom of Solomon. The two books of Ezra are placed straight after Wisdom, instead of Sirach. At the end of the list, after the four prophets and the Maccabees, the canon again states, “Kaljiq ar I khratel zmankuns dzer` Siraq” (“Take Sirach to exhort your children”).46

41 

V. Hakobyan, “Kanonagirk‛‛ hayoc‛,” pp. 557–​565.

42 Ibid. 43 

Ibid.

44 Ibid.

45 “Kanonk‛ 46 

Haranc‛ Hetevołac‛,” No. 27. V. Hakobyan, “Kanonagirk‛‛ hayoc‛,” p. 113.

104   Garegin Hambardzumyan The Armenian translation of canon No. 55 of the Council of Laodicea (4th c.) brings in another interesting point relating to the Armenian biblical canon. The Armenian “canon No. 55” of Laodicea is actually an amalgamation of canons No. 59 and 60 of the Greek text,47 and, though numbered differently, in content is not greatly different from the original. It mentions all the books of the New Testament and omits some of the deuterocanonical books. The point necessary to highlight here is that unlike other Armenian translations of the aforementioned canons where the books of the New Testament were omitted, in the earliest canons of Laodicea they are mentioned. If the aforementioned Armenian canons were translations from Greek or other languages, then those canons which were accepted at the Council of Partav in AD 70348 were originally written in Armenian and according to the Armenian tradition. This council was called by the Armenian Catholicos of Sion and Davit the Catholicos of Ałvank῾ in Partav the capital of Ałvank῾. As in many of the other councils mentioned, the list of canons produced at the Council of Partav places that canon which lists the biblical books at the end and in it there is no mention of the books of the New Testament. This Partav list is related to the Apostolic canons. It mentions Judges; but Esther and 1–​3 Maccabees are omitted along with Judith, Tobit, and the Wisdom of Solomon. The Partav canons were written largely to regulate the liturgical life of the Armenian Church it also provides details about social life in Armenia. The canon from the Apostolic or Clement’s canons was attached to the Partav canons to conclude the liturgical regulation of the Church. In other words, along with setting the accepted ceremonies of the Church, Catholicos Sion and all other participants of this council were determined also to set the list of accepted books of the Bible.49 Subsequent to the council of Partav there has been no such council or formal decision that would define the canon lists of the Armenian Bible. We can see from the discussion so far that it is difficult to define the exact shape of the Armenian biblical canon. Nevertheless, some lists have appeared throughout the centuries which, although not officially adopted by the church as accepted lists of the Armenian canon, yet again are worth examining as good sources of historical evolution of the biblical canon of the Armenian church. After the publication of the 1805 and 1860 editions of the Armenian bible with their different canonical arrangements, scholarly interest continued to grow, and at the turn of the twentieth century, M. Ter-​Movsisyan50 and S. Webber made early studies of this subject attempting to establish which books of the Bible were translated into Armenian in the fifth century. Since then, interest has continued to grow in establishing the authentic route to the development of the canon. 47 

V. Hakobyan, “Kanonagirk‛‛ hayoc‛,” p. 593. The Council of Partav took place in around AD 703; it was called to uphold a view of the united nature of Christ’s divinity known as Monophysitism. Subtle differences around this theological view became important to political alliances for many centuries. 49 Since 1966 Michael E. Stone has published a series of very valuable articles in the Harvard Theological Review about the canon lists of the Armenian Church, the first of which is about the list of the Partav council. The article is very informative and can be very useful for further research. He examines some other interesting subjects such as the differences between the Armenian and Greek texts of the Canon, lists of the Apostolic canons, and those of the councils of Laodicea and the Second Council of Antioch. 50  M. Ter-​Movsesân Mesrop, Istoriâ perevoda Biblii (S. Petersburg, 1902), p. 191. See also S. Webber, “S. Groc’ yargn ow aržēk’ë hin hayoc’ k’ov,” in Handēs amsòreay, Vienna, 1897, pp. 130–​132. 48 

Translation of the Bible into Armenian     105 The first canon list appeared as early as in the seventh century. A renowned scholar, Anania Širakac’I, produced a stichometric51 list called “A Number of the Books of the Old and New Testaments.” His list has been preserved thanks to some medieval manuscripts that contain copies of his work.52 According to this list the following books are included in the Bible: Old Testament—​ Torah (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy), Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1–​4 Kings, 1–​2 Chronicles, 1–​4 Maccabees, the twelve Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Lamentations of Jeremiah, Letter of Jeremiah (interestingly this book is rarely found in the Armenian Bible), Ezekiel, Daniel, Psalms, Proverbs, Qoheleth, Blessing of Blessings (Song of Songs), Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, 1–​2 Ezrah, Esther, Tobit, Judith. New Testament—​Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, James, 1–​2 Peter, 1–​3 John, Revelation, Romans, 1–​2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1–​2 Thessalonians, Hebrews, 1–​2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon.

This is a more or less complete list of the Bible and is important as it lists the books of the Old and New Testament together. The source of Širakac’i’s list is unknown. Michael Stone suggests that it reflects a Greek canon list substantiating his argument by the rare appearance of the Letter of Jeremiah and the 4 Maccabees in it.53 This intriguing list, containing among other things both Revelation, which as previously mentioned did not enter wide use in the Armenian translation until the twelfth century, and those Old Testament books omitted, either intentionally or by oversight, from the Council of Partav’s canon, needs further research to find out whether Širakac’i’s list is a translation of an early Greek list or an original work by Širakac’i himself. The next known list is attributed to one Vanakan Vardapet and is usually found along with a translation of the Bible produced by Mxit’ar Ayrivanec’i in the thirteenth century. Some believe that Vanakan Vardapet is a well-​known medieval scholar, Hovhannes Imastaser.54 This list has come down to us in two editions, more or less corresponding to each other. They include: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1–​4 Kings, 1–​2 Chronicles, 1–​2 Ezra (in one edition of the manuscripts), 1–​3 Maccabees, Joseph that is the High Priest Caiaphas, Revelation of Enoch, Covenant of the Forefathers, Prayer of Aseneth, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra Salathiel, Job, Psalms of David, The Twelve, Proverbs, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, 3 Chronicles, Letter of Jeremiah, Repose of the Prophets, Jesus Sirach. 51  Stichometry refers to the practice of counting the number of lines of various texts—​an ancient way of seeking to retain accuracy before the age of printing when important texts were copied by scribes, along with checking the words at the start and ends of lines, maintaining a consistent number of lines would ensure faithful duplication without loss or interpolation. 52  Cf, Matenagirk’ Hayoc’, Ē dar, hator D (Anthelias, 2005), pp. 790–​791. 53  M. Stone, “Armenian Canon Lists II—​The Stichometry of Anania of Shirak (c. 615–​c. 690 C.E.),” Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 68, No. 3/​4, 1975, pp. 253–​260. 54  Some scholars such as Norayr Połarian and Šahe Ačemyan believe that Vanakan Vardapet in fact refers to Hovhannes Vardapet rather than another scholar called Vanakan Vardapet who established the Xoranašat monastery with its famous school that produced many prominent theologians. This is despite the fact that the latter is chronologically closer to Mxit’ar Ayrivanec’i’s times and Ayrivanec’i mentions Vanakan Vardapet as someone who “clarified” the books of the Armenian translation of the Bible. Cf., Hovhannes Avetisyan, The canon of the Armenian Bible, dissertation (Sup. G. Hambardzumyan, Etchmiadzin, 2018), p. 25.

106   Garegin Hambardzumyan When listing these books, Ayrivanec’i underlines emphatically that these are the authentic books of the Bible.55 Šahe Ačemyan provides information about this list with some omissions. The New Testament is presented as follows: John, Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts, James, 1–​2 Peter, 1–​3 John, Judas, Plea of Euthalius, Romans, 1–​2 Corinthians, Letter of the Corinthians, 3 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1–​ 2 Thessalonians, Hebrews, 1–​2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Revelation, Repose of John. It is noteworthy that the ordering within the list of the New Testament here in Ayrivanec’i’s work differs significantly from other canon lists. The two books of Luke are placed together. The Plea of Evtagh as well as 3 Corinthians are a part of the canon along with the Repose of John. Although Revelation is part of this list, we know that at this time it was yet to be widely accepted as a part of the canon. What is more interesting about Ayrivanec’i’s list is that for the first time in the Armenian tradition he presents a short list of apocryphal literature, which at the time of his writing activity was read among the Armenians. Those are: Adam, Enoch, Sibyl, Twelve Forefathers, Joseph’s Prayer, the Elevation of Moses, Eldad and Medad, Psalms of Solomon, Elijah’s hidden ones, the Seventh vision of Daniel. Is it possible that Ayrivanec’i here sought to affirm the historical acceptability of some of the apocryphal works that were feeding his flock, or was his list written to rule out other spiritual writings that he considered less helpful—​we cannot know. In later centuries further scholars have continued to examine the subject of the biblical canon. The next author to have touched on the subject of the canon lists was Sargis Šnorhali,56 who lived in the twelfth century. In one of his commentaries57 he lists the books of the Old Testament and then adds at the end the following: “additionally these are disputable books: Jesus Sirach, Ezra (along with other seventy-​two hidden books).”58 There is no further information about his oblique reference to those seventy-​two books in his list or in the text of the commentary. Generally, his Old Testament list of the books corresponds to the Hebrew canon, with the addition of Judith and Maccabees.59 In his work the New Testament list bears no mention of the book of Revelation, and instead of the usual name of the book of Acts in Armenian Šnorhali uses Prax, similar to the Latin Praxis—​suggesting a possible source text. Three of the Apostolic letters are considered “ambiguous” by Šnorhali and only the First letters of Peter and John, along with the letter of James, which caused Martin Luther such problems, are accepted by Šnorhali without any concern.60 In the canon list of Šnorhali we also find a short list of what he calls “refuted books”: the Feast of Mary, the Gospel of Thomas, and the Gospel of the Infancy of Christ. Among the most prominent of medieval scholars is the fourteenth-​century Armenian teacher Gregory of Tat῾ew. Gregory produced two canon lists, one of which simply corresponds entirely to the Hebrew canon of the Bible with twenty-​two books. His second 55 See

Š. Ačemyan ark῾, Hayeren Astvacašownč῾ə (Yerevan, 2006), pp. 181–​183. NB: “Sargis” can be an honorific title meaning “protector” or “defender.” 57  See S. Šnorhali, Meknowt῾iwn eôt῾anc῾ t῾łt῾oc῾ kat῾ołikeayc῾ (Jerusalem, 1998), pp. 398–​399. 58 S. Šnorhali, Meknowt῾iwn eôt῾anc῾ t῾łt῾oc῾ kat῾ołikeayc῾ (Jerusalem, 1998), p. 399. 59  Z. Aznavowryan ark῾., Astvacašownč῾in veraberyal owsowmnasirowt῾yownner (ed. V. vrd. Meloyan, Anthelias, 2007), p. 102. 60  Sargis vrd. Šnorhali, Meknowt῾iwn eôt῾anc῾ t῾łt῾oc῾ kat῾ołikeayc῾, (Jerusalem, 1998), pp. 398–​399. 56 

Translation of the Bible into Armenian     107 list included all the books known to us and the deuterocanonical books and also includes the “Covenant of the Prophets,” which inclusion is very rare. In his list Gregory of Tat῾ew calls the canonical books “astvacakert”—​created by God, and the deuterocanonical books “astvacašownč῾”—​breathed by God.61 He adds among the books of the New Testament the Repose of John, the Acts of Thaddeus (it depicts the visit of the apostle to King Abgar in Edessa), readings of James, two Apostolic canons, the Words of Justos (this is either a compilation of the works of Josephus Flavius or a story about a man called Joseph the carpenter), the book of Dionysius the Areopagite, the Missionary activity of Peter. Not explicitly mentioned here is the stance of Gregory of Tat῾ew regarding these books and their place within the canon of the New Testament. It may be assumed that they are added merely as supplementary reading. Altogether some thirty-​six books are included in this canon list most probably to correspond neatly to the number of the letters in the Armenian alphabet as it is in the case of the Hebrew canon list. From the various canon lists issued over this period, we can clearly see first the immense range of ancient scriptural texts preserved, passed down, and available in Armenian that make the Armenian scriptural and literary heritage so very precious, and second, that concern for faithfulness to the ancient scriptural canon was something of a battleground for the Defenders of the Armenian Church—​with scriptural texts defining the shapes of worship and the lives of communities.

Printed Editions of the Bible in Armenian We have already mentioned two printed editions of the Armenian Bible in 1805 and 1860; however, the very first ever printed edition of the Bible in Armenian was undertaken in 1666 by the abbot of the Ushi monastery, Oskan of Erevan, in Amsterdam. The edition was produced based on a thirteenth-​century manuscript that belonged to an Armenian king of Cilicia; however Oskan of Erevan also drew on his own monastic sources in this first printed edition. It mainly corresponds to the Greek biblical canon list with influences from the Latin Vulgate.62 In the list of the book of the Old Testament Oskan adds 3 and 4 Ezra, which he translated himself from Latin. Interestingly, the Prayer of Manasseh and the 4 Ezra are placed at the end of the New Testament. There are extant copies of this edition in which these latter books are missing.63 In 1705 and later in 1733, Petros Latinac῾i and Mxit῾ar Sebastac῾I, respectively, published their own editions—​both almost direct copies of Oskan of Erevan’s edition of 1666.64 However these eighteenth-​century editions are not highly regarded and have hardly ever been used by later scholars when doing research on the Armenian text, most probably because of the quality of

61 

Š. Ačemyan ark῾., Hayeren Astvacašownč῾ə, p. 192. Z. Aznavowryan ark῾, Astvacašownč῾in veraberyal owsowmnasirowt῾yownner (ed. V. vrd. Meloyan, Anthelias, 2007), p. 163. 63  This is perhaps to avoid an opposition by the Church hierarchy as such an inclusion of the two books would have been seen as a direct influence of the Latin text. 64  Z. Aznavowryan ark῾., Astvacašownč῾in veraberyal owsowmnasirowt῾yownner (ed. V. vrd. Meloyan, Anthelias, 2007), pp. 163–​164. 62 

108   Garegin Hambardzumyan the language and the fact that some of the books were directly translated from Latin by the publisher. The next printed edition of the Bible as previously mentioned was done in 1805 by Fr. Hovhannes Zôhrapean,65 whose contribution to the biblical canon we already partially discussed earlier. Unlike the single-​source Oskan edition of the Bible, Zôhrapean’s was more scholarly, being based on around eight earlier manuscripts; and the main source of his edition was the manuscript work produced by Geworg Skewrac῾i.66 Zôhrapean’s edition was published both in four volumes and in a single volume.67 Zôhrapean rearranges the order in several places, putting Hebrews after 2 Thessalonians; and after the New Testament he adds an appendix with the following books: Sirach, The Words of Sirach, 3 Ezra, Prayer of Manasseh, the Letter of the Corinthians to Paul, the Repose of John, and the Plea of Euthalius. It is not clear whether the text of Zôhrapean is also influenced by an unnamed Greek parent text or another source. There have been various opinions regarding this matter in the case of the language and style of certain books included in this edition.68 Arsen Bagratowni’s scholarly edition of 1860 corresponds, with some minor differences, to the canon of Zôhrapean. Bagratowni adds a helpful summary of content before each book of the Bible to aid comprehension. Between Zôhrapean’s and Bagratowni’s editions others were produced which again were more or less reprints of the Oskan edition. After publication of Bagratowni’s edition of the Bible, Oskan’s edition was slowly withdrawn from use. Considering the fact that Classical Armenian (Grabar) was not widely used anymore, the Bible was translated into the two modern dialects of Armenian—​eastern and western. Since the 1920s various attempts were made to publish the New Testament in modern dialect. Zôhrapean is among the pioneers of this activity.69 Later, several new versions were published in Smyrna, first the New Testament in 1842 and then the entire Bible in 1853. Another translation, called “Ararat,” was published in 1895. The quality of the language and the style of these translations was criticized by various academics, such as V. Teryan.70 The classical Armenian texts of Zôhrapean and Bagratowni, and of Constantinople 1895, were later used for numerous translations both in eastern and western dialects. The 1895 edition was produced by the American Bible Society. Unlike all the previous editions, it lacked the deuterocanonical books. Despite this, it was widely used for almost a century. By 1960 the American Bible Society had added the deuterocanonical books to the new printed copies.71 65 

Astvacašunč‛ Matean Hin yev Nor Ktakaranac‛, vol. 1–​4 (ed. H. Zôhrapean, Venice, 1805). H. Anasyan, Astvacašownč῾ matyan. Haykakan bnagir, Haykakan matenagitowt῾yown. 5–​18 cc., vol. 2 (Yerevan, 1976), p. 340. Cf. A. Manowkyan ark῾., Astvacašownč῾ Matyanə (Tehran, 1995), p. 58. 67  Astwacašownč῾ Matean Hin ew Nor Ktakaranac῾ əst čšgrit t῾argmanowt῾ean naxneac῾ meroc῾ i hellenakann hawatarmagoyn bnagrê i haykakans barbar (ed. H. Zôhrapean, Venice, 1805) and Astvacašunč‛ Matean Hin yev Nor Ktakaranac‛, vols. 1–​4 (ed. H. Zôhrapean, Venice, 1805). 68  Sapientia Jesu Filii Sirach (ed. J. Ziegler, Göttingen, 1965), p. 36; Cf. C. Cox, Hexaplaric Materials Preserved in the Armenian Version (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986). 69  V. Teryan eps., “Astvacašnč῾i ašxarhabar t῾argmanowt῾yan ew hratarakowt῾yan patmowt῾yownic῾,” in Etchmiadzin (Etchmiadzin, 1966), pp. 176–​189. 70  Cf. V. Teryan eps., “Astvacašnč῾i ašxarhabar t῾argmanowt῾yan ew hratarakowt῾yan patmowt῾yownic῾,” in Etchmiadzin (Etchmiadzin, 1966), pp. 176–​189. 71  Astowacašownč῾ Girk῾ Hin ew Nor Ktakaranac῾ (Constantinople, 1892). 66 

Translation of the Bible into Armenian     109 The two latest editions of the Bible were produced first in 1994,72 from classical Armenian with the use of the Zôhrapean edition, and the second in 2017 by the Bible Society of Armenia. In the first edition the deuterocanonical books are included in the main canon and the book of Sirach is placed after the Wisdom of Solomon, unlike the Zôhrapean’s order, while in the 2017 edition the deuterocanonical books are again placed separately, at the end of the Old Testament. Recent developments in the study of the Armenian Bible have heightened yet again the need for a new edition, preparation of which must address the numerous textual, theological, and even political issues that span many editions and manuscripts. In this context, it is of particular importance to bring together all the known manuscripts and printed editions to establish the more or less authentic text. The Syriac and Greek originals of the two parent texts of the earliest (fifth-​century) Armenian translation gradually became merged in their various recensions so that it is almost impossible to identify which part of an Armenian translation is taken from the Greek and which part from the Syriac—​to the extent that Hrač῾ya Ačar̄yan, a renowned scholar of the twentieth century, suggests that even much of the very first translation was done not from Syriac but from an older Greek parent text.73 Still their early origins remain undeniable. The spiritual and cultural significance of the Armenian translation of the Bible and its impact is evident both in the process of the development of the Armenian language, arts, and history as well as the shaping of the national identity. When we speak about the Armenian translation of the Bible, unlike numerous translations done in other languages, we mainly have in mind the translation done in the fifth century and copied faithfully by scribes in the centuries that followed. Despite all the recensions and editions that the Armenian canon of the Bible has been subject to, its direct textual connection with the earliest extant scriptural sources is undeniable. It is widely accepted that the translation of the Bible into that “Queen of translations,” classical Armenian, was the main reason and driving force behind the invention of the alphabet in the fifth century by St. Mesrop, to overcome political pressures and support the life and faith of a uniquely Christian people; while the varying texts of the canon over the centuries reveal a core faithful to the earliest apostles and further enriched by scriptural texts rarely preserved in any other place or language.

Bibliography Astowacašownč῾ Matean Hin ew Nor Ktakaranac῾ (Etchmiadzin, 1994). Astowacašownč῾ Girk῾ Hin ew Nor Ktakaranac῾ (Constantinople, 1892). Astvacašunč‛ Matean Hin yev Nor Ktakaranac‛, Vol. 1–​4 (ed. H. Zôhrapean, Venice, 1805). Anasyan, H., Astvacašownč῾ matyan. Haykakan bnagir, Haykakan matenagitowt῾yown. 5–​18 cc., Vol. 2 (Yerevan, 1976).

72 

Astowacašownč῾ Matean Hin ew Nor Ktakaranac῾ (Etchmiadzin, 1994). Ačar̄yan, “Sowrb Grk῾i t῾argmanowt῾yownə,” in Etchmiadzin (Etchmiadzin, 1961), pp. 19–​ 35 With, he considers, the exception of the books of Maccabees, which appears to have come from a different source text. 73 H.

110   Garegin Hambardzumyan Anasyan, H., Haykakan matenagitutyun, Vol. 2 (Yerevan, 1976). Aznavowryan Z. ark῾ Astvacašownč῾in veraberyal owsowmnasirowt῾yownner (ed. V. vrd., Meloyan, Anthelias, 2007). Bagratowni, A., Imastutyun Hesua Vordvo Siraqa yev Tught Eremia margarei Ar Geryalsn i Babilon (Venice, 1878). Cox, C., Hexaplaric Materials Preserved in the Armenian Version (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986). Ełiaian, B., K῾nnakan patmowt῾iwn sowrbgrakan žamanaknerow, Vol. 5 (Anthelias, 1976). Haykakan hamarot hanragitaran (Yerevan, 1999). Hakobyan, V., Kanonagirk‛ hayoc‛ (Yerevan, 1964). Koriwn, Vark‛ Maštoc‛i (ed. M. Abeghyan, Yerevan, 1983). Łazar P῾arpec῾i, Patmowt῾iwn hayoc῾ ew t῾owłt῾ ar̄ Vahan Mamikonean (ed. G. Ter-​ Mkrtchyan, S. Malkhasyan, Yerevan, 1982). Lyonnet, S., Les Origines de la Version Arménienne et le Diatessaron (Biblica et Orientalia 13; Rome: Pontificio Instituto Biblico, 1950). Manowkyan, A. ark῾., Astvacašownč῾ Matyanə, (Tehran, 1995). St. Grigor Narekatsi, Speaking with God from the Depths of the Heart (trans. Thomas J. Samuelian, Yerevan, 2002). Nersesyan, N. av. k῾hn., Astvacašownč῾ə ew hay mšakowyt῾ə (Yerevan, 2001). Ter-​Movsesân M., Istoriâ perevoda Biblii (St. Petersburg, 1902). Ačemyan, Š. ark῾., Hayeren Astvacašownč῾ə (Yerevan, 2006). Sargis vrd. Šnorhali, Meknowt῾iwn eôt῾anc῾ t῾łt῾oc῾ kat῾ołikeayc῾ (Jerusalem, 1998). Stevenson, J., Creeds, Councils and Controversies: Documents Illustrative of the History of the Church A.D. 337–​461 (London, 1966). Westcott, B. F., The Bible in the Church: A Popular Account of the Collection and Reception of the Holy Scriptures in the Christian Churches (London, 1896). Xorenac‛i, Movses, Patmutyun Hayoc‛ (Tbilisi, 1913).

Articles Ačar̄yan, H., “Sowrb Grk῾i t῾argmanowt῾yownə,” in Etchmiadzin (Etchmiadzin, 1961), pp. 19–​35. Akinian, N., “Sowrb grk‛i hayerên t‛argmanowt‛iwn,” in Handes amsoreay (Tbilisi, 1935) . Aznavowryan, Z., ark῾ Astvacašownč, in Veraberyal owsowmnasirowt῾yownner (ed. V. vrd, Meloyan, Anthelias, 2007), pp. 163–​164. Bagratowni A. (ed.), Astvacašunč‛ Matean Hin yev Nor Ktakaranac‛ (Venice, 1860), pp. 681–​704. Cox, C. E., “The Armenian Translation of the Bible,” in Proceedings of the Conference “Where the Only-​Begotten Descended: The Church of Armenia through the Ages,” convened at Ann Arbor, Apr. 1–​4, 2004 (ed. K. Bardakjian), accessed June 20, 2020. Dowrean, E. ark῾., “Noragyut glukhner Siraqa grqin hin targmanutenen,” in Sion (Jerusalem, 1927), p. 246. Harrington, D. J., “The Old Testament Apocrypha in the Early Church and Today,” in The Canon Debate (eds. Martin McDonald, E. J. Sanders, Baker Academic, 2019), pp. 196–​210. Karst, J., “The Armenian Version of Eusebius’ Chronicon,” American Journal of Theology, Vol 20, No. 2 (1916), pp. 295–​297.

Translation of the Bible into Armenian     111 Połarian, N. ark῾., ‘Siraqi nor glukhner’ in Sion (Jerusalem, 1944), p 27. Stone, M., “Armenian Canon Lists II—​The Stichometry of Anania of Shirak (c. 615–​c. 690 C.E.),” in Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 68, No. 3/​4 (1975), pp. 253–​260. Webber, S., S. Groc. “yargn ow aržēk’ë hin hayoc’ k’ov,” in Handēs amsòreay (1897). Avetisyan, H., “The Canon of the Armenian Bible,” dissertation (Supervisor, G. Hambardzumyan, Etchmiadzin, 2018). St. Jerome, The Prologue to the Book of Kings, , accessed November 2020.

Chapter 7

B yz antine Le c t i ona ry M anuscrip ts a nd T h e i r Significance for Bi bl i c a l Textual C ri t i c i sm Gregory S. Paulson It is true that, like most texts, those of the New Testament writings settled down into respectable middle age after an exciting early life. But they also carried with them many memories of those youthful days. Thus, the editor of the Greek New Testament has to know and understand what the Byzantine text is in all its richness.1

Introduction Even though lectionaries constitute roughly one-​ third of all extant biblical Greek manuscripts (MSS),2 they have been largely neglected and relegated to a negligible role within the field of textual criticism for generations.3 Why is this the case? Lectionaries contain what is commonly referred to as the Byzantine text, a text form that was more or less the authoritative Greek text read in churches in Asia Minor from the ninth to sixteenth centuries at the height of the Byzantine MS tradition.4 Historically, the Byzantine text has been of little significance for scholars in their efforts to establish the “original text” or the earliest attainable text of the Bible. This is because MSS that contain the Byzantine text were

1 

Parker, “New Testament Textual Traditions in Byzantium,” 32. This number is tabulated from the figures in the next section (cf. nn. 24, 25, and 33). 3 Westcott and Hort state that lectionaries constitute “an accessory class of Greek MSS” (Introduction, 76). 4  See Miller, “The Prophetologion,” 63–​65. 2 

BYZANTINE LECTIONARY MANUSCRIPTS   113 copied at a much later date than the early papyri or majuscule MSS, the MSS generally preferred by editors of critical editions.5 Entering the realm of lectionary research can admittedly be daunting, given the complex system of readings and numerous differences among lectionaries themselves.6 This chapter begins by explaining what is meant by the term “lectionary” in the field of Greek biblical textual criticism and briefly discusses Septuagint (LXX) and New Testament lectionaries. Then it explores why lectionaries, as primary representatives of the Byzantine text, have remained largely unused by text critics and highlights the main reasons they have been regarded as bearing little value for textual criticism. Finally, it discusses how a new paradigm shift in textual criticism has begun to offer an elevated status to these oft-​neglected ecclesiastical witnesses, arguing that lectionaries not only serve to represent diverse strands of the Byzantine text but also offer a unique window into how scripture has been used and understood throughout centuries amidst the rhythms and rituals of public worship.

What Is a Lectionary? A lectionary (ἐκλογάδια) is a liturgical book,7 containing selected biblical passages designed to be read aloud in church services. Although the majority of Greek lectionary MSS extant today are from the ninth to seventeenth centuries, the infancy of the lectionary tradition can be traced back as far as the third/​fourth centuries of the early church. The ensuing centuries witnessed the systematization of a set of ecclesiastically prescribed readings. The early epicenters of Christian worship produced two major traditions of lectionaries, broadly defined as the Jerusalemite tradition, the earliest type of lectionary with ties to the early Armenian and Georgian traditions; and the Constantinopolitan (Byzantine) type, which was a modification of the Jerusalemite tradition.8 This chapter focuses on the latter. The readings in Byzantine lectionaries were arranged according to two calendars: the movable church calendar called the synaxarion (συναξάριον) and the fixed civil calendar called the menologion (μηνολόγιον).9 The synaxarion developed gradually over centuries; lections for Sunday were established first, then for Saturdays, then weekdays.10 Readings from the menologion are less uniform than the synaxarion readings, perhaps due to local

5  Of course, there are exceptions to preferring the oldest MSS, such as the Robinson-​Pierpont edition. See Paulson, “An Investigation of the Byzantine Text of the Johannine Epistles.” 6  See Paulson, “Proposal for a Critical Edition of the Greek New Testament Lectionary.” 7  On defining “lectionary,” see Bouhot and Amphoux, “Lecture Liturgique et Critique Textuelle des Epitres Catholiques,” 297–​298; on “prophetologia,” see Engberg, “Prophetologion Manuscripts in the ‘New Finds’ of St. Catherine’s at Sinai.” For a general discussion of liturgical books in the Constantinopolitan rite, see Taft, “I libri liturgici;” and Alexopoulos and Anatolikiotes, “Towards a History of Printed Liturgical Books.” 8  See Galadza, Liturgy and Byzantinization in Jerusalem. 9  In the Byzantine tradition, the synaxarion starts on Easter Sunday and ends on Holy Saturday; the menologion starts on September 1 and ends August 31. On lectionary terminology, see Noret, “Ménologes, Synaxaires, Ménées,” and Myshrall, “An Introduction to Lectionary 299.” 10  Von Dobschütz, “Zur Liste der NTlichen Handschriften,” 201. Cf. also Gy, “La Question du Système des Lectures de la Liturgie Byzantine,” 261; Velkovska, “Lo Studio dei Lezionari Bizantini,” 258.

114   Gregory S. Paulson traditions. Some lectionaries contain commemorations for saints that are unique to their Sitz im Leben. There may also be readings from the Old Testament in an otherwise New Testament lectionary. Some days (or perhaps most days) may not have a reading from the menologion at all. All these diverse features contribute to the complexity of lectionary studies. Lectionaries can be distinguished both by the calendar they are based on as well as by the biblical contents of their readings. New Testament lectionaries—​the Apostolos (Ἀπόστολος) and Evangelion (Εὐαγγέλιον)11—​were used in the Divine Liturgy and matins, and the Septuagint Prophetologion (Προφητολόγιον)12 was used at vespers (and at Divine Liturgy only during Lent).13 These three lectionaries14 were the primary mediums through which the layperson heard Scripture being read aloud in Byzantium.15

The Septuagint Lectionary: The Prophetologion The Septuagint lectionary, the Prophetologion, likely originated in Constantinople before the sixth century and offers readings throughout the whole synaxarion.16 It consists mainly of Old Testament readings for Lent, during which three pericopes are read each weekday, one each from Isaiah, Genesis, and Proverbs.17 These three Old Testament books are read almost in their entirety during Lent. During Holy Week, when the Prophetologion is read in liturgy, the selection of passages is meant to “[foreshadow] the events of the Passion and the Crucifixion.”18 The Prophetologion did not play a prominent role in services the way New Testament lectionaries like the Evangelion or Apostolos did; it was not used in a procession nor read by a celebrant.19 Spronk confirms the minor role of the Prophetologion, saying, “It would be a misunderstanding to see the Prophetologion as the Old Testament of Byzantine Christianity.”20 The readings of the Prophetologion were eventually dispersed into other 11 

On different names of the Εὐαγγέλιον, see Karavidopoulos, “The Origin and History of the Terms Evageslistarion and Evangeliarion.” See also Colwell and Rife, “Special Uses of Terms in the Gospel Lectionary.” 12 Getcha, The Typicon Decoded, 53. According to Engberg, the term “prophetologion” was invented in the nineteenth century, possibly coined by Antonin Kapustin in his catalogs of Jerusalem and Sinai (“Prophetologion Manuscripts in the ‘New Finds’ of St. Catherine’s at Sinai,” 94). The Prophetologion was formerly called Ἀναγνώσεις (cf. Engberg, “The Needle and the Haystack,” 48 n. 3). 13  Petras, “The Gospel Lectionary of the Byzantine Church,” 115. 14  Only these three liturgical books can be defined as Byzantine lectionaries. See, for example, Höeg and Zuntz, “Remarks on the Prophetologion,” 225; Engberg, “The Needle and the Haystack,” 48; Zuntz, “Das Byzantinische Septuaginta-​Lektionar,” 184. There are single volume Old Testament and New Testament lectionaries, e.g., GA L751 and L1605, but these are uncommon. 15  Psalters, or their liturgical form, the Horologion, are not defined as lectionaries in biblical textual criticism. Although Nestle speaks of the Psalter as a lectionary, Engberg is correct to state, “The Psalms do not belong in the OT lectionary since in the Cathedral rite they were never recited as lections, but formed part of the sung repertory as prokeimena, hallelouia verses etc.” Engberg, “The Prophetologion and the Triple-​Lection Theory,” 88; Nestle, Urtext und Übersetzungen der Bibel in Übersichtlicher Darstellung, 76. On Psalters and their contents, see Parpulov, “Psalters and Personal Piety in Byzantium.” 16  Engberg, “The Prophetologion and the Triple-​Lection Theory,” 90. 17  Engberg, “An Early Greek Lectionary Recovered,” 66. 18 Barrois, Scripture Readings in Orthodox Worship, 18. 19  Engberg, “Les Lectionnaires Grecs”; Rouwhorst, “Liturgical Reading,” 168. 20  Spronk, “Prophetologion and the Book of Judges,” 13.

BYZANTINE LECTIONARY MANUSCRIPTS   115 liturgical books (Menaia, Triodion, or Pentecostarion), and by the seventeenth century it fell into disuse within the Byzantine church. Of the three kinds of Byzantine lectionaries, the Prophetologion is the least used in modern textual criticism.21 This is not simply because it played a smaller role in Byzantine church services but also because it contains a small amount of Old Testament text. Miller states, “It contains only a very small percentage of the whole Old Testament, but it does contain segments of text from many of the books found therein.”22 He estimates that only 15 percent of the Old Testament is found in the Prophetologion.23 In a recent publication, Engberg gives the number of extant Prophetologia as “more than 200.”24 While there are around 2,000 known LXX MSS, Prophetologia account for only 10 percent of these.25 The fact that the Prophetologion is given scant text-​critical attention is evidenced in the register of LXX MSS, Rahlfs’s Verzeichnis der griechischen Handschriften des Alten Testaments (the Verzeichnis), where such Prophetologia are cataloged. In the first edition of 1914, approximately 140 Prophetologia are listed as lectionaries, but only two of these were actually given a Sigel number: 332 (Athos Iviron 165) and 1883 (Sinai Gr. 550). Apart from these, Rahlfs did not give a Sigel number to liturgical books, stating, “Nicht mit Sigeln versehen sind auch die liturgischen Bücher, da ihre Erforschung kaum begonnen hat und ich daher nicht aufs Geratewohl Sigeln einführen mochte, die sich später vielleicht als unpraktisch erweisen.”26 In 2004, Fraenkel updated Sigel numbers for LXX MSS that dated up to the eighth century. In this list, however, only three lectionaries were registered, and these (oS4, oS5, and oS6) were not even given a Sigel number.27 Thus, the official catalog of LXX MSS attributes little scholarly attention to these MSS. Because most Prophetologia are dated after the eighth century, more should appear in subsequent publications of the Verzeichnis.

The New Testament Lectionaries: The Apostolos and Evangelion Similar to the Prophetologion, New Testament lectionaries also likely originated in Constantinople—​perhaps before the 6th century—​but it is unlikely that Old Testament 21 

Discussions of the Prophetologion are not typically included in handbooks of the Septuagint. Cf. their absence in three recent popular handbooks, Dines, The Septuagint; Tov, The Text-​Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research; and Jobes and Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint; but the exception of Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, 168–​170. A discussion of lectionaries is also missing from the recent primer on Old Testament textual criticism but found in the New Testament textual criticism portion of that book: Anderson and Widder, Textual Criticism of the Bible. 22  Miller, “The Prophetologion,” 59. 23  Miller, “The Prophetologion,” 66 n. 29. 24  Engberg, “An Early Greek Lectionary Recovered,” 66. 25  Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, Septuaginta-​Unternehmen, . 26 Rahlfs, Verzeichnis der griechischen Handschriften des Alten Testaments, xxvi. 27 Fraenkel, Verzeichnis der griechischen Handschriften des Alten Testaments, 464.

116   Gregory S. Paulson

Figure 7.1  Figures of NT lectionary reading schedules in the synaxarion. and New Testament lectionaries developed simultaneously.28 The Evangelion contains four synaxarion periods of Gospel readings in the order John, Matthew, Luke, Mark; a fifth period comprises the copious readings of Holy Week. The Apostolos covers the rest of the New Testament readings except for Revelation, which is not read in the Byzantine lectionary.29 There are a variety of lectionary reading schedules, from the full lectionary (le) with readings every day of the movable church calendar to only Sunday readings (lk) (see Figure 7.1). It is important to note that not every verse of the New Testament is offered—​ even in a full New Testament lectionary—​and there are some interesting omissions, for example the reading for Pentecost (John 7:37–​52; 8:12) omits the Pericope Adulterae.30 The readings in the menologion are typically less uniform than the synaxarion readings, with the exception of the thirteen Greater Festivals, which Redus has argued are relatively uniform.31 Unlike the Prophetologion, which did not play a major role in liturgy, the Evangelion and Apostolos were featured prominently. In fact, Parpulov claims, “In the eyes of the Byzantines, [the Gospel Lectionary] was the most important book of all.”32 The register of Greek New Testament MSS, the Gregory-​Aland Kurzgefasste Liste der griechischen Handschriften des neuen Testaments (the Liste), records more information about lectionaries than the LXX Verzeichnis. The Liste has registered over 5,600 MSS, of which approximately 2,400 are cataloged as lectionaries.33 The problem of clearly defining what constitutes a lectionary is apparent in the Liste, which has tended to lack clear criteria for adding lectionaries throughout its over one hundred-​year history. Most of the registered lectionaries in the Liste are either Evangelia, Apostoloi, or both Evangelia-​Apostoloi,

28  Junack, “Lectionary: Early Christian Lectionaries;” Engberg, “The Prophetologion and the Triple-​ Lection Theory,” 90. 29  Revelation is read in its entirety in the Coptic tradition on the Friday before Easter Sunday. Cf. Francis, “Blessed Is the One Who Reads Aloud,” 68. 30  See van Lopik, “Some Notes on the Pericope Adulterae in Byzantine Liturgy.” 31  Redus, “The Text of the Major Festivals of the Menologion in the Greek Gospel Lectionary,” 3, 6. 32  Parpulov, “Byzantine Libraries.” Cf. also Zuntz, “Das Byzantinische Septuaginta-​Lektionar,” 184. 33  Data calculated from the NTVMR Liste . October 2020.

BYZANTINE LECTIONARY MANUSCRIPTS   117 but there are a number of MSS cataloged as “Lit” meaning “other liturgical books” such as Euchologia, Typica, Menaia, etc. Since the inception of the Liste, if a MS were a Byzantine liturgical book but not a lectionary, the only requirement for it to be added was that it must contain at least one reading from the New Testament in Greek.34 Another classification within the lectionary category has been the Psalms-​Odes (PsO) MSS, which often contain the Magnificat (Lk 1:46–​55) and Benedictus (Lk 1:68–​79).35 Only twelve of these were registered, all entered by Gregory in his first installment of the Liste in 1908. In recent years these categories have been reconsidered in preparation for a revised edition of the Liste. Henceforth, the “lectionaries” that are already cataloged as “Lit” or “PsO” in the Liste will remain, but no further additions will be added to these categories. Thus, the classifications “other liturgical books” and Psalms-​Odes MSS will no longer constitute “Greek NT lectionaries”; and hereafter only liturgical books with the synaxarion and/​or menologion will normally be added as lectionaries in the Liste. Even though there is a distinction in the Liste between majuscule and minuscule scripts, it is significant that there are almost the same number of lectionaries written in majuscule (approx. 290) as there are continuous-​text majuscule MSS (approx. 320). Because most continuous text majuscule MSS are so fragmented, there are over 5,000 more extant folia of majuscule lectionaries (approx. 44,400) than continuous text majuscule MSS (approx. 39,100).36 Majuscule continuous text MSS have greater import for traditional textual criticism because the majority of them are dated several centuries earlier than the earliest majuscule lectionaries. This brings us to a discussion of how lectionaries have traditionally been regarded within the field of textual criticism.

Traditional Value of Lectionaries in Textual Criticism As I have argued elsewhere, the use of lectionaries in critical editions and research of the Greek New Testament can generally be divided into three chronological periods.37 In the first period, from the first printed editions (sixteenth century) to Scholz (1830), lectionaries were generally cited in critical editions more frequently than in the subsequent period. Critical editions during this period were not based on MSS evidence but were reprints of the Textus Receptus, which is a form of the Byzantine text that closely resembles lectionaries. Thus, the citation of lectionaries supported the printed text. In 1842, however, Lachmann published the first major critical edition based on early MSS; his apparatus looked drastically different than those before him. He no longer included lectionaries or minuscules but only continuous-​text majuscules and other earlier sources. Therefore, this second period of lectionary use in critical editions, which lasted

34 

See also Paulson, “What Is the Kurzgefasste Liste?” For a discussion of the Psalms-​Odes MS tradition, see Knust and Wasserman, “The Biblical Odes and the Text of the Christian Bible.” 36  Data calculated from the NTVMR Liste, October 2020. 37  Paulson, “Proposal for a Critical Edition of the Greek New Testament Lectionary,” 122–​139. 35 

118   Gregory S. Paulson until Merk (1933), signaled the overthrow of the Textus Receptus and lectionaries were relegated to an “accessory class” within textual criticism.38 Since then lectionaries have been largely dismissed as fruitless for critical editions and not worth the effort to study because they contribute little insight into the earliest text. Although editors are often silent about their decision to exclude lectionaries in critical editions, three primary reasons can be deduced for their exclusion: their late date, the purported uniformity of their text, and their noncontinuous text form. These characteristics made them unappealing for use in critical editions when the purpose of the edition was to establish the earliest attainable text.

Relationship between Date and Text A late-​dated MS has generally meant a late text is found therein; this does not instill confidence when searching for the earliest text. Lectionaries paled in comparison to the “prestige” of the papyri and the “dominant role” the majuscule MSS have played.39 Riddle confirmed that “a prejudice against [lectionaries] has arisen which has precluded their use in editions.”40 One reason for this (which can also be applied to continuous text minuscules) is that lectionaries transmit the Byzantine text, which is a text form that has been reworked and smoothed out over time. Metzger states that the Byzantine text is characterized chiefly by lucidity and completeness. The framers of this text sought to smooth away any harshness of language, to combine two or more divergent readings into one expanded reading (called conflation), and to harmonize divergent parallel passages.41

However, some scholars held a more nuanced assessment of late-​dated MSS. Tregelles, following Griesbach, was convinced it was possible to find readings in younger MSS that have preserved the oldest text—​as long as these readings could be corroborated by the earliest MSS.42 Westcott and Hort noted, “Some of these [lectionaries] have been found to contain readings of sufficient value and interest to encourage further enquiry in what is as yet an almost unexplored region of textual history, but not to promise considerable assistance in the recovery of the apostolic text.”43 Thus, for the editors of one of the most influential editions of the Greek New Testament, lectionaries were theoretically able to transmit valuable readings but had little worth for recovering the earliest attainable text. As bearers of the Byzantine text, lectionaries have been easy to dismiss wholesale in textual criticism. Even though the date and number of extant lectionaries is comparable to minuscules, other features of their text and composition contributed to their overall disregard in scholarship.

38 

Westcott and Hort, Introduction, 76. Aland and Aland, Text of the NT, 83, 103. 40  Riddle, The Use of Lectionaries in Critical Editions,” 67. 41 Metzger, Textual Commentary, 7*. Cf. Metzger and Ehrman, Text of the New Testament, 279–​280. 42 Tregelles, An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament, 175–​177. 43  Westcott and Hort, Introduction, 76–​7 7. 39 

BYZANTINE LECTIONARY MANUSCRIPTS   119

Textual Uniformity The biblical text of lectionaries had generally been regarded as uniform; hence, one lectionary would not offer anything fundamentally new when compared with another. About the text of the Prophetologion, Höeg and Zuntz state, “The first general impression is a great uniformity in the MS tradition.”44 This holds true even when the rest of the MS tradition is not uniform at a given passage, e.g., Gen 1:11; Num 24:7; Mich 5:1; Isa 35:7.45 They stated, “On the background of the general instability of the Septuagint tradition, it is indeed surprising to find long lessons with practically no variants in the MSS.”46 Höeg and Zuntz were thus able to infer the text of the Prophetologion based on select test passages since the text was so reliably consistent. They produced a major critical edition of the Prophetologion (1939–​1970) to explore Byzantine philology and the history of Old Testament tradition.47 Even though a summation of their results was never written,48 their critical edition did not indicate that the text of the Prophetologion was valuable for establishing the earliest text. One of the formidable problems of the biblical MS tradition is its complexity. For the New Testament MS tradition, a major series of investigations, published as Text und Textwert (TuT) in the Arbeiten zur neutestamentlichen Textforschung (ANTF) series, was carried out to determine the percentage of agreement between MSS. The editors included all extant New Testament MSS in these investigations, except for lectionaries, which were excluded due to their assumed uniformity. As Wachtel explains, “For the lectionaries it is not necessary to run the full program [i.e., to include them in TuT], because fewer test passages are necessary to check whether they contain the standard late Byzantine text.”49 Equally disappointing was von Soden’s justification for omitting New Testament lectionaries from his major work: “Sodann war zu besorgen, dass die Textgeschichte der Lektionarien unter Umständen ihre eigenen Wege ging, und so ihre Herbeiziehung ebenso leicht das Bild verwirren als aufhellen könnte.”50 Even though TuT and von Soden are two of the best resources to see MSS categorized according to their textual agreement, both decided to omit lectionaries in their investigations. The TuT studies did so because the editors believed the lectionary text was mostly homogeneous, whereas von Soden saw the lectionary text as of secondary importance to the continuous text, with more potential complications than benefits. The exclusion of lectionaries from these influential scholarly resources constituted a major setback for lectionary research.

44 Höeg

and Zuntz, “Remarks on the Prophetologion,” 200. and Zuntz, “Remarks on the Prophetologion,” 200–​202. 46 Höeg and Zuntz, “Remarks on the Prophetologion,” 200. Elsewhere Zuntz states, “Die überraschende Festigkeit des Textes macht es möglich, auf Grund von zehn bis fünfzehn Hss. eine verläßliche Darstellung desselben, samt seinen—​ wenig zahlreichen—​ charakteristischen Varianten, zu geben” (“Der Antinoe Papyrus der Proverbia und das Prophetologion,” 125). Cf. also Metzger, Manuscripts of the Greek Bible, 116. 47 Höeg and Zuntz, “Remarks on the Prophetologion,” 225–​226. 48  Engberg, “The Prophetologion and the Triple-​Lection Theory,” 88–​89. 49  Wachtel, “The History and Principles of the Latest Nestle-​Aland Edition,” 11. 50  von Soden, Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments, 19–​20. 45 Höeg

120   Gregory S. Paulson

Noncontinuous Text In addition to the assumptions that lectionaries had a late text and were textually uniform, editors evinced further biases against lectionaries’ noncontinuous text form. Because the lectionary’s organization grew out of the exigencies of being read aloud in church services, the text form itself was seen as a secondary development. These MSS no longer bore the original organization of the text, and it makes sense that MSS in this form would often have been copied from other lectionaries rather than from continuous-​text MSS, as Parker stated in 1997.51 Thus, the text form found in the lectionary tradition is farther removed from the original text form, and the scholarly consensus was that the lectionary tradition had continued on its own path, separate from continuous text MSS, yet still Byzantine in textual character. This secondary form may also have posed practical complications for editing a continuous text edition, as editors had to decide how to cite lectionaries in the apparatus when a passage is missing and/​or when a passage is recorded multiple times. It is not accurate to state a lectionary “omits” a passage in the same way a continuous text MS might omit a phrase or verse through homoeoteleuton, nor does a lectionary contain dittography when a verse is repeated on a different day the way a continuous-​text MS might repeat a line of text. These logistical difficulties made citing noncontinuous text lectionaries in an apparatus cumbersome and likely less appealing as witnesses to be cited in a critical edition. While editors of critical editions did not usually explain why they excluded lectionaries in critical editions, I have described three of the most probable reasons for their omission. Lectionaries are dated later than the early MSS, which were preferred for recovering the earliest attainable text. Lectionaries were seen as mostly uniform: to examine one was to have essentially examined them all. Finally, they were deemed farther removed from the original text due to their noncontinuous text form. Because of these reasons, lectionaries were unappealing for use in critical editions, especially when the editors already had—​as von Soden claimed—​an abundance of evidence from other witnesses to consider.52

New Value of Lectionaries in Textual Criticism We have now explored why lectionaries were omitted historically from critical editions, but the story does not end there. Although changes have been long in the making, we now find ourselves in a third era of lectionary research.53 This era essentially began in 1932, when Colwell founded the Chicago Lectionary Project, which produced a useful volume of preliminary studies and a number of dissertations devoted to the study of the New Testament lectionary. This wave of fresh lectionary studies occurred while biblical textual criticism was undergoing a shift in how the field understands its primary objective. The discipline 51 Parker,

The Living Text, 109. von Soden, Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments, 19–​20. 53  Paulson, “Proposal for a Critical Edition of the Greek New Testament Lectionary.” 52 

BYZANTINE LECTIONARY MANUSCRIPTS   121 that had focused almost exclusively on establishing the “original” text now began to value all readings as a way to understand “the history and cultural context of the individuals and communities that transmitted (and, occasionally, created)” these texts.54 Read-​ Heimerdinger depicts this paradigm shift as, a move among textual critics away from the search for the “original” text to the consideration of individual manuscripts, translations, citations, and liturgical collections as witnesses to a text that was being adapted to the circumstances of the communities for whom they were created—​an adaptation that can be understood not as a falsification or distortion but as a genuine modification intended to make the text meaningful to the new recipients. While some would still confer special authority on the reconstruction of what they believe to be the oldest form of the text (the ‘initial text’ of the Nestle–​Aland edition), others focus attention more on the historical insights into the development of the Church provided by the texts in active service among the communities.55

In this new period, Byzantine lectionary MSS are valued not only for reconstructing the earliest attainable text, but because they offer a unique window into Byzantine Christianity. Spronk is indicative of this new perspective when he says the Prophetologion has an “admittedly marginal” use for LXX textual research, but rather has more importance for understanding “sacred texts within their liturgical context.”56 In what follows, I describe how Byzantine lectionaries are valuable for the new era of textual criticism in spite of their late date, perceived uniformity, and noncontinuous text form.

Relationship between Date and Text In the third period of lectionary use, we see a shift away from Tregelles’s notion that while early readings may be found in younger MSS, these readings had to first be corroborated by the earliest MSS. Text critics began to acknowledge that an early reading could be preserved in the Byzantine mainstream in places where this reading was not preserved in the earliest MSS.57 Thus, early readings in late MSS do not need to be supported by early MSS. The ongoing Editio Critica Maior (ECM) projects have greatly contributed to our knowledge of the text of lectionaries.58 Three volumes have been published so far: the Catholic Letters, Acts, and the Gospel of Mark. The ECM editors have recognized that the Byzantine tradition can help establish the initial text; they did not simply rely on the oldest MSS but utilized the Coherence-​Based Genealogical Method (CBGM) to consider all witnesses as potentially transmitting the earliest text.59 The CBGM uses full transcriptions

54 

Holmes, “From ‘Original Text’ to ‘Initial Text,’ ” 638. Read-​Heimerdinger, review of Liturgy and the Living Text of the New Testament, 877. 56  Spronk, “Prophetologion and the Book of Judges,” 13. 57  This theory was developed in the works of Wachtel. For example, see Wachtel on the revaluation of the Byzantine text in “Notes on the Text of Acts,” 30*–​31*. 58  For an overview of the ECM projects, see Houghton, “The Editio Critica Maior of the Greek New Testament.” 59 For an introduction to the CBGM, see Mink, “The Coherence-​ Based Genealogical Method (CBGM)—​Introductory Presentation.” 55 

122   Gregory S. Paulson of witnesses to make word by word (or phrase by phrase) comparisons of texts and tallies percentages of agreement (called pre-​genealogical coherence). At every variant passage, a local stemma of texts is created by the editors, which forms a hypothesis about which texts descended from other texts. After the local stemmata are created at every variant passage, a descendant/​ancestor relationship is formed between all witnesses (called genealogical coherence). All this data can be accessed online in Genealogical Queries, which is used by the ECM editors to help establish the initial text.60 To help assess the information, ECM editors have developed a number of guidelines. One reads, “A strong argument for assessing a variant as initial text is provided by an attestation which combines coherence and a broad range of diverse witnesses closely related to A [i.e., the Ausgangstext].”61 This “broad range of diverse witnesses” naturally includes the Byzantine text, which includes lectionaries. The ECM of Acts established a text different from the NA28 in fifty-​two passages. Many of these changes shifted away from the long-​cherished papyri and early majuscules to the Byzantine text. For example, in Acts 16:17/​2-​4, the text of the NA28 reads αὕτη κατακολουθοῦσα, witnessed by P45, P74, 01, 03, 05, et al. The ECM editors decided instead to adopt the reading αὕτη κατακολουθήσασα as witnessed by the Byzantine text, including all lectionaries that were selected for the edition.62 The evidence for the priority of the Byzantine reading at this variant unit is (1) the good coherence of the Byzantine witnesses (see Figure 7.2) and (2) the aorist tense makes more sense in context than the present.63 This assertion that lectionaries should be included among “a broad range of diverse witnesses” was also postulated years earlier by Bouhot and Amphoux: les lectionnaires, en raison de leur nombre et de la variété de leurs origines géographiques et linguistiques, peuvent apporter une contribution appréciable à la critique textuelle, même s’il s’agit des Épîtres Catholiques utilisées tardivement dans les livres liturgiques. Sans doute, la critique textuelle ne fait-​elle guère état, jusqu’à présent, du témoignage des lectionnaires, mais le texte de ces derniers—​à l’exception du domaine latin—​est encore mal connu.64

We see another paradigm shift when it comes to the notion that late MSS can possess an early reading, as long as the reading is also attested by early MSS. It has now been argued in the ECM that some passages in the Byzantine text do, in fact, contain the earliest reading, although these readings are not witnessed in the earliest MSS. This observation has opened the door for lectionaries to be witnesses of the earliest text. As mentioned earlier, the Byzantine text is known for having accumulated smooth readings, which were the result of continual modifications over time. The editors of the ECM Acts created a new guideline that paved the way for isolating readings with a claim to originality within the Byzantine text, noting, “The priority of a majority reading is indicated if

60  Genealogical Queries tools can be accessed here for Catholic Letters: ; for Acts and Mark: . 61  Wachtel, “Text-​Critical Commentary,” 1. 62 The ECM editors selected nine lectionaries for the CBGM for Acts, two of which have a supplement: L23, L60, L156, L156S, L587, L809, L1178, L1188, L1188S, L1825, L2010. Cf. ECM Acts, 2:5–​15. 63  Cf. Wachtel, “Text-​Critical Commentary,” 24–​25. 64  Bouhot and Amphoux, “Lecture Liturgique et Critique Textuelle des Epitres Catholiques,” 306.

BYZANTINE LECTIONARY MANUSCRIPTS   123

Figure 7.2  Coherence in attestations showing good coherence for αὕτη κατακολουθήσασα in Acts 16:17/​2–​4. it is linguistically more difficult or contextually less suitable and thus atypical of the majority text.”65 When the Byzantine tradition offers a reading that is more difficult (but still sensical) than earlier MSS, this implies that the Byzantine MSS have preserved the earlier, more difficult reading. Again, Bouhot and Amphoux were already on the right track with a similar observation, “Les péricopes liturgiques peuvent provenir de témoins archaïques du Nouveau Testament ou même de descendants d’états du texte antérieurs à la formation du recueil canonique.”66 The ECM editors have now put into practice what Bouhot and Amphoux theorized years earlier—​that late MSS can contain a reading from descendants of witnesses that are prior to early MSS. We can see this in Acts 5:33/​12, when the Sanhedrin either became furious (ἐβούλοντο: P74, 02, 03, et al.) or deliberated (ἐβουλεύοντο: 01, 05, and Byzantine text) and wanted to execute the Apostles. Metzger tries to account for the Byzantine reading using transcriptional probabilities, stating that ἐβουλεύοντο arose from “scribal blunder.”67 Wachtel, in contrast, rightly asserts that “Neither the context nor the graphical environment of -​ευ-​would, however, explain such a slip.”68 The CBGM can assist here by displaying coherence between the texts of these MSS. Genealogical Queries elucidates that witnesses 65 Gäbel

et al., “The CBGM Applied to Variants from Acts Methodological Background,” 3. Bouhot and Amphoux, “Lecture Liturgique et Critique Textuelle des Epitres Catholiques,” 307. 67 Metzger, Textual Commentary, 291. 68  Wachtel, “Text-​Critical Commentary,” 12. 66 

124   Gregory S. Paulson

Figure 7.3  Coherence in attestations showing poor coherence for ἐβούλοντο in Acts 5:33/​12. containing the reading ἐβούλοντο are close descendants of witnesses that read ἐβουλεύοντο (see Figure 7.3).69 Coherence between witnesses of ἐβούλοντο is not good, while there is “perfect”70 coherence between witnesses of ἐβουλεύοντο. These factors suggest that the Byzantine mainstream ἐβουλεύοντο is actually the initial text; all lectionaries selected for the edition contain this reading, meaning they—​not the traditionally preferred earliest MSS—​preserve the initial text. Thus, in this third era of lectionary use, a late date is no longer a criterion for excluding a MS from consideration as a witness to the initial text when the earliest MSS do not also corroborate the reading.

Textual Uniformity Questions still remain about whether the lectionary text is really so similar that a few individual lectionaries can serve to faithfully represent the whole lectionary tradition. Höeg and Zuntz concluded that the Prophetologion offered consistent agreement amid varied places, but this was based on test passages and still needs to be verified with full transcriptions.71 Concerning New Testament lectionaries, there is now a trend toward recognizing more diversity among lectionaries and general agreement that even though lectionaries can be grouped together by text, not all lectionaries constitute a monolithic textual group.72 As Gibson states for lectionaries of Acts, “there is no single textual trajectory from lectionary witness to lectionary witness. Rather, the lectionary text of Acts reflects the whole range of the Byzantine tradition, presenting early and late subvariants and occasionally following earlier textual traditions.”73 Likewise, Riddle believed that Evangelia contain a “strata where they have a totally different type of text [than the Textus Receptus]; there are areas where they agree with one another against the received text.”74 While his conclusions were based on test passages, there has been headway by way of

69 Cf.

. Wachtel, “Text-​Critical Commentary,” 12. 71  For example, they identify a textual group of South-​Italian Prophetologia (Flor. Plut. IX, 15; Vat. Reg. 75; Crypt. A δ 2), which is especially apparent in Judges 6:36–​40 (Höeg and Zuntz, “Remarks on the Prophetologion,” 198). 72  See especially Wachtel, “Early Variants in the Byzantine Gospels.” 73  Gibson, “Theological Titles in the Greek Lectionary of Acts,” 195. 74  Riddle, “The Character of the Lectionary Text of Mark,” 21. 70 

BYZANTINE LECTIONARY MANUSCRIPTS   125

Number of passages

2280

1402

1399

592 345

1

2

392

260

3

4

5

6

7

445

554

8

9

30

5

0

10

11

12

Number of lectionaries agreeing together

Figure 7.4  Number of lectionaries in agreement at different passages in Mark. the CBGM, which uses a comprehensive apparatus based on full transcriptions. Looking at the General Textual Flow diagram (with A and Z added) in Genealogical Queries for Acts, we can see one group of lectionaries with L23 as the potential ancestor and L156, L587, L809, and L1825 (and L156S) as its descendants. When we consider L60, L1188, L1188S, L1178, and L2010, however, each has a completely different nonlectionary MS as its closest potential ancestor. Thus, the lectionary tradition of Acts does not depict overall textual uniformity.75 A similar pattern is observed in the Gospel of Mark.76 There are only thirty variants in ECM Mark (out of over 5,700 variant passages composed of over 22,000 variants) where all ten lectionaries that were selected for the ECM of Mark agree together (see Figure 7.4).77 This data clearly refutes the long-​held assumption that lectionaries form a single homogeneous group. If they did evince such textual uniformity, we would expect a higher rate of agreement.

Noncontinuous Text As stated earlier, the noncontinuous text form of lectionaries has been a hinderance for their use in textual criticism since their text form was seen as secondary and did not align sequentially with the majority of MSS. This unique characteristic, however, has now been embraced within the “new” textual criticism as scholars endeavor to plumb the depths of the

75  This is also true concerning Coptic MSS, as Schulz says, “there is no evidence in the Sahidic textual tradition of the New Testament for a specific lectionary text” (“Evidence for a Lectionary Text in Sahidic Coptic,” 218). 76 The ECM editors selected ten lectionaries for the CBGM for Mark, two of which have a supplement: L60, L211, L387, L547, L547S, L563, L563S, L770, L773, L844, L950, L2211. Cf. ECM Mark. 77  A list of all lectionaries at their variant units in Mark are found at: . The data can be experimented with by changing the “limit” number in the URL to add the number of nonlectionaries into the equation. With “limit=​200” the results include every Greek MS used in the ECM; entering “limit=​0” will show where lectionaries stand by themselves apart from nonlectionary MSS. Thanks to Volker Krüger (INTF) for designing this program.

126   Gregory S. Paulson whole MS tradition and try to discover more about the social milieu of those who used the text.78 Lectionaries are uniquely poised to shine light on numerous aspects of Byzantium. For example, Kniazeff interprets the theological, historical, and pedagogical meaning of the inclusion and arrangement of lections and highlights the importance of the Old Testament lections for “l’Histoire sainte” of the church.79 The study of the Prophetologion is useful in its own right, not directly related to textual criticism as it has been traditionally envisioned. Theories and answers to the Prophetologion’s origins,80 development,81 and discontinuation may shed light on church history and the liturgical use of scripture. The same can be said for New Testament lectionaries.82 Studying the noncontinuous text form has also proven useful in recent years for establishing MSS relationships. As Burns showed, GA 490 and L574 belong to the group of MSS known as the Ferrar group (Family 13) since their lection systems are in alignment.83 While it has long been understood that the noncontinuous format can explain the rise of certain variants in continuous text MSS, this can be easily seen in the ECM Catholic Letters. Creating a noncontinuous format necessitated introductory phrases called incipits, which were added at the outset of each lection. Since incipits are clearly later additions, all indications of them had typically been left out of critical editions. With the ECM Catholic Letters, the editors included a useful feature, the siglum Λ, in the critical apparatus to identify this specific occurrence.84 This is evident in 1 John, for example, where there are six synaxarion readings beginning with “αδελφοι” and all but one of these were copied into continuous text MSS.85 In the most minimalistic sense, lectionaries have the potential to explain variants that have arisen from liturgical use, which can often happen when continuous text MSS copy lectionary incipits. Likewise, indications of the synaxarion or menologion systems were usually omitted from critical editions because the day of a certain reading was inconsequential for establishing the initial text.86 Because critical editions have lacked such lectionary details, users were not given the opportunity to familiarize themselves with lectionaries or encounter their unique composition and arrangement. The IGNTP Luke edition, however, included such information to assist the user in finding their way through the peculiarities of lectionaries. An apparatus of synaxarion and menologion lections was included along with the incipit text and notifications of lectionary differences.87 Within biblical textual criticism, there is now a better understanding that noncontinuous text forms can not only illuminate early church practices and interpretation of Scripture but also help to determine MS relationships and offer evidence for the creation of variants. 78 

Cf. Caulley, “The ‘New’ Textual Criticism.” Kniazeff, “La Lecture de l’Ancien et du Nouveau Testament dans le Rite Byzantin.” 80  Engberg, “An Early Greek Lectionary Recovered,” 70. 81 Getcha, The Typicon Decoded, 53. 82  Cf. Bouhot and Amphoux, “Lecture Liturgique et Critique Textuelle des Epitres Catholiques,” 306. 83  Burns, “Newly Discovered F13 MS and Ferrar Lection System.” Duplacy asked this question twelve years earlier in “Les Lectionnaires et l’Édition du Nouveau Testament Grec,” 536. 84  ECM Catholic Letters, 2:3. 85  These passages in the ECM Catholic Letters are: 1 John 1:8/​1; 2:7/​2; 2:18/​2; 3:9/​1; 4:20/​1. 86  Bouhot and Amphoux, “Lecture Liturgique et Critique Textuelle des Epitres Catholiques,” 284. 87   IGNTP Luke, 1:vii. 79 

BYZANTINE LECTIONARY MANUSCRIPTS   127

Conclusion This chapter has described the various roles that Byzantine lectionaries (i.e., Prophetologion, Evangelion, Apostolos) have played throughout the centuries within biblical textual criticism. Starting in the sixteenth century, critical editions consisted of reprints of the Textus Receptus, and lectionaries were cited with ease since they reflected the main text. After the Textus Receptus was overthrown and the text was instead based on early MSS, lectionaries were also jettisoned from the critical apparatus. I have outlined three likely reasons for their expulsion. First, their late date was seen as hindering their ability to carry an early text, especially considering there were enough MSS to choose from that were dated centuries earlier. Second, the lectionary text was regarded as mostly uniform so that consideration of a minimal number of lectionaries was sufficient to represent the whole tradition. Third, the noncontinuous text format was farther removed from the original organization of the text and served as another indicator of lectionaries’ secondary status. Due to these factors (and likely others), lectionaries were regarded as having little value for reconstructing the earliest text of the Bible and were left out of critical editions in favor of earlier, continuous text MSS. The twentieth century witnessed a rekindled interest in the study of lectionaries, and we now find ourselves in a new era of textual criticism in which their role has become more valued and nuanced. Scholars have come to appreciate that a late date does not necessarily mean a late text is found therein; rather later MSS add to the diversity of text attestations. With new tools for comparing MS relationships like the CBGM, researchers are able to scrutinize the notion of textual uniformity and have discovered both distinct groups of lectionaries as well as single lectionaries that are closely aligned with groups of continuous text MSS. The noncontinuous format of lectionaries has enabled scholars to identify textual groups and unique textual variants and has shed new light on the MS tradition and the conception of scripture within Byzantine Christianity. While positive strides have been made within lectionary research, several areas for further study are apparent here. Continued testing of the theory that lectionaries—​as part of the Byzantine text—​contain readings prior to the oldest MSS is needed (particularly for the Prophetologia, since this has not yet begun). Further exploration of textual groups based on full transcriptions is also desired, especially since only a small percentage of lectionaries were included in the ECM. Inclusion of more information about the lectionary systems in critical editions would also be key to inform users of their noncontinuous composition and contents. A critical edition of the Greek New Testament lectionary is still a desideratum in textual criticism,88 and more research into the origins and development of the lection system is needed, particularly what role majuscule New Testament lectionaries have played or the relationship between Lucianic MSS and the Prophetologion.89 In closing, there is little doubt that lectionaries played an integral part in the life of the church and the development of the biblical text. Lectionaries, as bearers of the Byzantine text, offer unique glimpses into how the church in Byzantium understood and used

88 

Cf. Paulson, “Proposal for a Critical Edition of the Greek New Testament Lectionary.”  Höeg and Zuntz, “Remarks on the Prophetologion,” 213.

89

128   Gregory S. Paulson Scripture throughout the centuries in public worship. The field of textual criticism has only begun to mine the riches of these biblical artifacts and discover therein a distinctive lens into the Byzantine church, those who worshiped there and how they understood and experienced Scripture.

References Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, Septuaginta-​Unternehmen. “Septuaginta Unternehmen.” , accessed October 29, 2020. Aland, Kurt, and Barbara Aland. The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism. 2nd ed, Translated by Erroll F. Rhodes. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1989. Alexopoulos, Stefanos, and Dionysios Bilalis Anatolikiotes. “Towards a History of Printed Liturgical Books in the Modern Greek State: An Initial Survey.” Ecclesia orans 34 (2017): 421–​460. Anderson, Amy. and Wendy Widder, Textual Criticism of the Bible. Rev. ed. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2018. Barrois, Georges. Scripture Readings in Orthodox Worship. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1977. Bouhot, Jean-​Paul, and Christian-​Bernard Amphoux. “Lecture Liturgique et Critique Textuelle des Epitres Catholiques.” In La Liturgique des Épitres Catholiques dans l’Eglise Ancienne, edited by Jean-​Paul Bouhot and Christian-​Bernard Amphoux, 283–​332. Lausanne: Éditions du Zèbre, 1996. Burns, Yvonne. “A Newly Discovered Family 13 Manuscript and the Ferrar Lection System.” 289. In Studia Patristica, vol. XVII, part 1, edited by Elizabeth A. Livingstone, 278–​ Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1982. Caulley, Thomas Scott. “The ‘New’ Textual Criticism: Challenges and Promise.” Stone-​ Campbell Journal 13 (2010): 225–​241. Colwell, Ernest Cadman, and John Merle Rife. “Special Uses of Terms in the Gospel Lectionary.” In Studies in the Lectionary Text of the Greek New Testament, Vol. 1: Prolegomena to the Study of the Lectionary Text of the Gospels, edited by Ernest Cadman Colwell and Donald W. Riddle, 6–​12. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1933. Dines, Jennifer M. The Septuagint. Edited by Michael A. Knibb. London: T&T Clark, 2004. Duplacy, Jean. “Les Lectionnaires et l’Édition du Nouveau Testament Grec.” In Mélanges Bibliques en Hommage au R.P. Béda Rigaux, edited by Albert Descamps and R.P. André de Halleux, 509–​545. Gembloux: Duculot, 1970. (ECM Acts) Strutwolf, Holger, Georg Gäbel, Annette Hüffmeier, Gerd Mink, and Klaus Wachtel, eds. Novum Testamentum Graecum Editio Critica Maior, III: The Acts of the Apostles. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2017. (ECM Catholic Letters) Aland, Barbara, Kurt Aland, Gerd Mink, Holger Strutwolf, and Klaus Wachtel, eds. Novum Testamentum Graecum Editio Critica Maior, IV: Catholic Letters. 2nd ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2013.

BYZANTINE LECTIONARY MANUSCRIPTS   129 (ECM Mark) Strutwolf, Holger, Georg Gäbel, Annette Hüffmeier, Marie-​Luise Lakmann, Gregory S. Paulson, and Klaus Wachtel, eds. Novum Testamentum Graecum Editio Critica Maior, I: Synoptic Gospels: The Gospel of Mark. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2021. Engberg, Sysse Gudrun. “An Early Greek Lectionary Recovered: The Palimpsest MS Cambridge Westminster College WGL 9/​2.” Bollettino della Badia Greca di Grottaferrata 15 (2018): 61–​96. Engberg, Sysse Gudrun. “Les Lectionnaires Grecs.” In Les Manuscrits Liturgiques, Cycle Thématique 2003–​2004 de l’IRHT, edited by O. Legendre and J.-​B. Lebigue. IRHT: Paris 2005. . Engberg, Sysse Gudrun. “Prophetologion Manuscripts in the ‘New Finds’ of St. Catherine’s at Sinai.” Scriptorium 57 (2003): 94–​109. Engberg, Sysse Gudrun. “The Needle and the Haystack: Searching for Evidence of the Eucharistic Old Testament Lection in the Constantinopolitan Rite.” Bollettino della Badia Greca di Grottaferrata 13 (2016): 47–​60. Engberg, Sysse Gudrun. “The Prophetologion and the Triple-​Lection Theory—​The Genesis of a Liturgical Book.” Bollettino della Badia Greca di Grottaferrata 3 (2006): 67–​92. Francis, Matthew W.G. “‘Blessed Is the One Who Reads Aloud . . . ’: The Book of Revelation in Orthodox Lectionary Traditions.” In Exegesis and Hermeneutics in the Churches of the East: Select Papers from the SBL Meeting in San Diego, 2007, edited by Vahan S. Hovhanessian, 67–​78. New York: Peter Lang, 2009. Gäbel, Georg, Annette Hüffmeier, Gerd Mink, Holger Strutwolf, and Klaus Wachtel. “The CBGM Applied to Variants from Acts: Methodological Background.” TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism 20 (2015). . Galadza, Daniel. Liturgy and Byzantinization in Jerusalem. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019. Getcha, Job. The Typicon Decoded: An Explanation of Byzantine Liturgical Practice. Translated by Paul Meyendorf. Yonkers, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2012. Gibson, Samuel. “ ‘Full of the Holy Spirit and Wisdom’: Variation in Theological Titles in the Greek Lectionary of Acts.” In Liturgy and the Living Text of the New Testament: Papers from the Tenth Birmingham Colloquium on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, edited by H.A.G. Houghton, 177–​196. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2018. Gy, Pierre-​ Marie. “La Question du Système des Lectures de la Liturgie Byzantine.” In Miscellanea Liturgica in Onore di Sua Eminenza il Cardinale Giacomo Lercaro, vol. 2, edited by V. Grossi, 251–​261. Rome: Desclée et Cie, 1967. Höeg, Carsten, and Günther Zuntz. “Remarks on the Prophetologion.” In Quantulacumque: Studies Presented to Kirsopp Lake by Pupils, Colleagues and Friends, edited by Robert P. Casey, Silva Lake, and Agnes K. Lake, 189–​226. London: Christophers, 1937. Holmes, Michael W. “From ‘Original Text’ to ‘Initial Text’: The Traditional Goal of New Testament Textual Criticism in Contemporary Discussion.” In The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research Essays on the Status Quaestionis, 2nd ed., edited by Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes, 637–​688. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Houghton, Hugh. “The Editio Critica Maior of the Greek New Testament: Twenty Years of Digital Collaboration.” Early Christianity 11 (2020): 97–​117. Hurtado, Larry W. The Earliest Christian Artifacts: Manuscripts and Christian Origins. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2006.

130   Gregory S. Paulson (IGNTP Luke) The American and British Committees of the IGNTP, ed. The New Testament in Greek: The Gospel According to St. Luke. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984 and 1987. Jobes, Karen H., and Moisés Silva. Invitation to the Septuagint. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2015. Junack, Klaus. “Lectionary: Early Christian Lectionaries.” In Anchor Bible Dictionary, edited by D.N. Freedman, 271–273. Vol. 4. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Karavidopoulos, John D. “The Origin and History of the Terms ‘Evagelistarion’ and ‘Evangeliarion.’” Orthodoxes Forum 7, no. 1 (1993): 177–​183. Kniazeff, R.P. Alexis. “La Lecture de l’Ancien et du Nouveau Testament dans le Rite Byzantin.” Lex Orandi 35 (1963): 201–​251. Knust, Jennifer, and Tommy Wasserman. “The Biblical Odes and the Text of the Christian Bible: A Reconsideration of the Impact of Liturgical Singing on the Transmission of the Gospel of Luke.” Journal of Biblical Literature 133, no. 2 (2014): 341–​365. Metzger, Bruce M. Manuscripts of the Greek Bible: An Introduction to Greek Palaeography. New York: Oxford University Press, 1981. Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. 2nd ed. Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 1994. Metzger, Bruce M., and Bart Ehrman. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. Miller, James. “The Prophetologion of Byzantine Christianity?” In The Old Testament 76. Washington, in Byzantium, edited by Paul Magdalino and Robert S. Nelson, 55–​ DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 2010. Mink, Gerd. “The Coherence-​Based Genealogical Method (CBGM)—​Introductory Presentation.” Release 1.0, 2009 . Myshrall, Amy. “An Introduction to Lectionary 299.” In Codex Zacynthius: Catena, Palimpsest, Lectionary, edited by H.A.G. Houghton and D.C. Parker, 169–​267. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2020. (NA28) Novum Testamentum Graece. 28th ed., edited by Holger Strutwolf, Luc Herren, Marie-​Luise Lakmann, Beate von Tschischwitz, and Klaus Wachtel. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012. Nestle, Eberhard. Urtext und Übersetzungen der Bibel in Übersichtlicher Darstellung. Sonderabdruck der Urtitel Bibeltext und Bibelübersetzungen aus der Dritten Auflage der Realencyklopädie für Protestntische Theologie und Kirche. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1897. Noret, Jacques. “Ménologes, Synaxaires, Ménées: Essai de Clarification d’une Terminologie.” Analecta Bollandiana 86 (1968): 21–​24. Parker, David. The Living Text of the Gospels. Cambridge: University Press, 1997. Parker, David. “New Testament Textual Traditions in Byzantium.” In The New Testament 32. Washington, in Byzantium, edited by Derek Krueger and Robert S. Nelson, 21–​ DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 2016. Parpulov, Georgi R. “Byzantine Libraries.” The British Library. July 6, 2016. . Parpulov, Georgi R. “Psalters and Personal Piety in Byzantium.” In The Old Testament in Byzantium, edited by Paul Magdalino and Robert S. Nelson, 77–​105. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 2010. Paulson, Gregory S. “An Investigation of the Byzantine Text of the Johannine Epistles.” Review and Expositor 114, no. 4 (2017): 580–​589.

BYZANTINE LECTIONARY MANUSCRIPTS   131 Paulson, Gregory S. “A Proposal for a Critical Edition of the Greek New Testament Lectionary.” In Liturgy and the Living Text of the New Testament: Papers from the Tenth Birmingham Colloquium on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, edited by H.A.G. Houghton, 121–​150. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2018. Paulson, Gregory S. “What Is the Kurzgefasste Liste?” INTF Blog, August 18, 2018. . Petras, David M. “The Gospel Lectionary of the Byzantine Church.” St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 41 (1997): 113–​140. Rahlfs, Alfred. Verzeichnis der Griechischen Handschriften des Alten Testaments, für das Septuaginta-​Unternehmen. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1914. Rahlfs, Alfred. Verzeichnis der Griechischen Handschriften des Alten Testaments, Vol. 1: Die Überlieferung bis zum VIII. Jahrhundert, bearbeitet von Detlef Fraenkel. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004. Read-​Heimerdinger, Jenny. “Review of Liturgy and the Living Text of the New Testament: Papers from the Tenth Birmingham Colloquium on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, edited by H.A.G. Houghton.” Journal of Theological Studies 71, no. 2 (2020): 876–877. Redus, Morgan Ward. “The Text of the Major Festivals of the Menologion in the Greek Gospel Lectionary.” PhD diss., University of Chicago, 1935. Riddle, Donald W. “The Character of the Lectionary Text of Mark in the Week-​Days of Matthew and Luke.” In Studies in the Lectionary Text of the Greek New Testament, Vol. 1: Prolegomena to the Study of the Lectionary Text of the Gospels, edited by Ernest Cadman Colwell and Donald W. Riddle, 21–​42. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1933. Riddle, Donald W. “The Use of Lectionary Manuscripts in Critical Editions and Studies of the New Testament Text.” In Studies in the Lectionary Text of the Greek New Testament, Vol. 1: Prolegomena to the Study of the Lectionary Text of the Gospels, edited by Ernest Cadman Colwell and Donald W. Riddle, 67–​77. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1933. Rouwhorst, Gerard. “The Liturgical Reading of the Bible in Early Eastern Christianity: The Protohistory of the Byzantine Lectionary.” In Catalogue of Byzantine Manuscripts in Their Liturgical Context, subsidia 1: Challenges and Perspectives, edited by Klaas Spronk, Gerard Rouwhorst, and Stefan Royé, 155–​171. Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols, 2013. Schulz, Matthias H.O. “Is There Evidence for a Lectionary Text in Sahidic Coptic?” In Liturgy and the Living Text of the New Testament: Papers from the Tenth Birmingham Colloquium on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, edited by H.A.G. Houghton, 197–​224. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2018. Spronk, Klaas. “The Prophetologion and the Book of Judges.” Journal of the Orthodox Center for the Advancement of Biblical Studies 6, no. 1 (2013): 9–​15. Swete, Henry Barclay. An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, revised by Richard Rusden Ottley, with an appendix containing the Letter of Aristeas, edited by J. Thackeray. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1902. Taft, Robert F. “I Libri Liturgici.” In Lo Spazio Letterario del Medioevo, 3: Le Culture Circostanti, vol. 1. La Cultura Bizantina, edited by G. Cavallo, 229–​256. Rome: Salerno Editrice, 2003. Tov, Emanuel. The Text-​Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research. 3rd ed. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2015. Tregelles, Samuel Prideaux. An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament with Remarks on Its Revision upon Critical Principles. London: Samuel Bagster and Sons, 1854. van Lopik, Teunis. “Some Notes on the Pericope Adulterae in Byzantine Liturgy.” In Liturgy and the Living Text of the New Testament: Papers from the Tenth Birmingham Colloquium on

132   Gregory S. Paulson the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, edited by H.A.G. Houghton, 151–​176. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2018. Velkovska, Elena. “Lo Studio dei Lezionari Bizantini.” Ecclesia Orans 13 (1996): 253–​271. von Dobschütz, Ernst. “Zur Liste der NTlichen Handschriften.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 32, no. 2 (1933): 185–​206. von Soden, Hermann Freiherr. Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments in Ihrer Ältesten Erreichbaren Textgestalt Hergestellt auf Grund Ihrer Textgeschichte. Part 1: Untersuchungen. Section I: Die Textzeugen. 2nd ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1911. Wachtel, Klaus. “Early Variants in the Byzantine Gospels.” In Transmission and Reception: New Testament Text-​Critical and Exegetical Studies, edited by J.W. Childers and D.C. Parker, 28–​ 47. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2006. Wachtel, Klaus. “The History and Principles of the Latest Nestle-​Aland Edition.” Paper presented at the International Bible Forum, Tokyo, Japan, May 2006. Wachtel, Klaus. “Notes on the Text of the Acts of the Apostles.” In Novum Testamentum Graecum Editio Critica Maior, Vol. III: Acts of the Apostles, edited by Holger Strutwolf, Georg Gäbel, Annette Hüffmeier, Gerd Mink, and Klaus Wachtel, part 1.1: Text, 28*–​33*. Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 2017. Wachtel, Klaus. “Text-​Critical Commentary.” In Novum Testamentum Graecum Editio Critica Maior, vol. III: Acts of the Apostles, edited by Holger Strutwolf, Georg Gäbel, Annette Hüffmeier, Gerd Mink, and Klaus Wachtel, part 3: Studies, 1–​38. Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 2017. Westcott, B.F., and F.J.A. Hort. Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek [2,] Introduction [and] Appendix. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1882. Zuntz, Günther. “Der Antinoe Papyrus der Proverbia und das Prophetologion.” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 68, no. 1 (1956): 124–​184. Zuntz, Günther. “Das Byzantinische Septuaginta-​Lektionar (‘Prophetologion’).” Classica et Mediaevalia 17 (1956): 183–​198.

Chapter 8

Past and Cu rre nt T re nd s in New Testa me nt Textual Cri t i c i sm Simon Crisp Introduction The New Testament is by some margin the most widely attested text of antiquity. The latest standard catalog of Greek New Testament manuscripts1 lists more than 5,600 textual witnesses, ranging from small papyrus fragments to the sixty or so manuscripts containing the New Testament in its entirety. To this figure must be added the even greater number of manuscripts, particularly in Latin, that preserve ancient translations of the New Testament, and that are in some cases older than most of the extant Greek manuscripts. Since all of these manuscripts were (by definition) copied by hand, they inevitably differ in many places: indeed, the overall number of differences, known as textual variants, in the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament has been calculated to be as much as 500 thousand.2 The majority of these variants are of minor interest (and the figure quoted does not even include things like spelling differences, slips of the pen, and so on), but a substantial number reflect more significant differences that arose either accidentally or deliberately in the course of transmission. The study of these variants forms the subject matter of New Testament textual criticism. Awareness of, and interest in, the variant readings found in the text of the New Testament goes back a long way. In her doctoral dissertation of 2009,3 Amy Donaldson documented

1  Kurt Aland, Kurzgefasste Liste der Griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments. The Liste is kept up to date in electronic form (with both new additions and additional information about existing entries) at http://​ntvmr.uni-​muens​ter.de/​liste. 2  Peter J. Gurry, “The Number of Variants in the Greek New Testament: A Proposed Estimate,” 113. 3  Amy Donaldson, Explicit References to New Testament Variant Readings among Greek and Latin Fathers.

134   Simon Crisp more than 120 units of variation.4 For example, several Fathers (Apollinaris, Pseudo-​ Athanasius, Augustine, Jerome, and Origen) comment on the presence or absence in the manuscripts at Matt. 5.22 of the word εικη (“without cause”).5 Their interest is primarily theological (the context being whether anger can ever be justified), but their discussions testify to their knowledge of textual variation in the manuscript tradition, and to the serious attention they paid to this matter. Several centuries passed before the question of textual variation in the New Testament was taken up once again in a more systematic way. The context for this was provided by the cultural transformations in Europe ushered in by the Renaissance and the Reformation. The culture of the Renaissance was founded to a large extent on the study of texts. The rediscovery of classical learning meant an explosion of interest in the writings of the classical period, and the reduced dominance of a narrower form of scholasticism controlled by the medieval Church. One of the revolutionary developments of the Renaissance was the idea that religious works could be studied in the same way as any other texts, using methodologies common to other humanist disciplines rather than a single approach imposed by the Church. In the case of the Bible, this more independent approach was reinforced by the Protestant Reformation. The idea that the reading and interpretation of the Scriptures could be a personal and private matter, rather than laid down within an ecclesiastical context, may be said to have led directly to the historical-​critical method of biblical exegesis, and to scholarly critical editions of the text itself. It is no coincidence that the first modern edition of the text of the Greek New Testament was published by the renowned Renaissance scholar Desiderius Erasmus in 1516, while Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the door of the Wittenberg Castle church in October of the following year (widely seen as the beginning of the Reformation). Erasmus’s edition of the Greek New Testament, undertaken primarily as a support for his new Latin translation rather than as an enterprise in its own right, was based on a small selection of half a dozen late manuscripts to which he happened to have personal access—​and even then he resorted to translating from Latin back into Greek for some verses (especially in Revelation) where he had no Greek text in the manuscripts at his disposal. Moreover, Erasmus’s primary interest was not textual variation in the Greek text, and he did not include in his edition anything that we would today recognize as a critical apparatus (although among his voluminous other writings there are several discussions of text-​critical matters). In any case, his edition of the Greek text became increasingly influential, to the extent that it acquired the name of Textus Receptus (“text received/​accepted by all”)6 and dominated study of the Greek New Testament for several centuries. It also served as the base text for many important translations of the New Testament, including the King James Version in English.7

4  The units are listed (without differentiating Greek and Latin authors) on pages 342–​ 343 of the dissertation, and are then individually presented in detail in a 200-​page “Catalogue.” 5 Donaldson, References, 348–​353. 6  For an account of how this came about, see Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration, 152, and especially note 36. 7  For details of Erasmus’s text-​ critical work, see the special issue of The Bible Translator, vol. 67, no. 1 (2016), especially the contribution by J.K. Elliott, “’Novum Testamentum editum est’: The Five-​ Hundredth Anniversary of Erasmus’s New Testament.”

Past and Current Trends in New Testament Textual Criticism    135 Over the next centuries we may observe a gradual process: First, an ever-​increasing number of variants in the Greek text were documented (usually in the form of a more or less extensive critical apparatus); and second, the Textus Receptus itself was gradually replaced with a new running text formed by analysis of the variants.8 What may in some sense be considered the culmination of this process was reached with the publication in 1881 of “The New Testament in the Original Greek”9 by the Cambridge scholars Westcott and Hort.10 Westcott and Hort’s edition was innovative precisely in the sense that they provided a new running text (and not a critical apparatus),11 a text moreover based on a clear and consistent methodology, which systematically outlined a series of text-​critical rules and also included a division of the mass of manuscript witnesses to the text into four recensions or text families (Syrian, Western, Alexandrian, and Neutral).12 The names of some of these text families changed more than once in the years that followed (which can make the terminology rather confusing) but from the perspective of this chapter there are two key features of Westcott and Hort’s approach that should be particularly borne in mind: First, enormous weight was given to what they called the Neutral text (essentially the text of the two great majuscule manuscripts Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus) in establishing the base text of their edition; and second, what they called the Syrian (now more commonly known as Byzantine) text was considered to be a later revision and therefore of secondary importance. Both of these matters became a kind of “received wisdom” as New Testament text-​critical studies developed in the twentieth century, but (as we shall see) both have been increasingly subjected to criticism in recent times. At the end of the nineteenth century an edition of the Greek New Testament appeared which was to become hugely influential over the following decades. Under the editorship of Eberhard Nestle the Novum Testamentum Graece was published in 1898 by the Württemberg Bible Society in Germany. Over the years the edition underwent changes in methodology, from following existing printed editions (with a small critical apparatus of variant readings) to being based directly on the manuscripts themselves; there were also several changes of editor (from Eberhard Nestle to his son Erwin, then to Kurt Aland, and subsequently to an editorial committee composed of eminent scholars in the field). The Novum Testamentum Graece (more commonly known as “Nestle-​Aland” [NA] after its most prominent editors) has now reached its twenty-​eighth edition (2012) and is undoubtedly the most widely used edition of the Greek New Testament in scholarly circles. In the 1950s the American scholar and translation specialist Eugene Nida initiated, under the aegis of the American Bible Society, a project for a new edition of the Greek

8 See Dirk Jongkind, “The Text and Lexicography of the New Testament in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries.” 9  Of course, this title is accurate in the sense that the New Testament was indeed originally written in Greek, but the larger implicit claim that the critical text itself constitutes in some real sense the original text, has nevertheless stuck. 10 A recent account of the history of this important edition is Peter J. Gurry, “‘A Book Worth Publishing’: The Making of Westcott and Hort’s Greek New Testament (1881).” 11  The second volume of their edition did contain a lengthy appendix, “Notes on Select Readings,” in which a number of textual variants were discussed. 12  See Metzger and Ehrman, Text of the New Testament, 177–​180.

136   Simon Crisp New Testament. The edition was to be prepared by a committee of well-​known New Testament textual scholars as an extensive original work (not based on any existing editions), and was intended primarily for the use of students and Bible translators. The first edition appeared in 1966, and what subsequently became known as the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (UBSGNT) has currently reached its fifth revised edition (2014). Mainly owing to overtures that Nida made to the Württemberg Bible Society and to Aland in person, from the twenty-​sixth edition onward the Nestle-​Aland edition followed the same running text as the UBSGNT, and subsequently the two editions also shared the same editorial committee. The differences between them are principally in their critical apparatus: NA documents some ten thousand variants in an extremely compressed way, while UBSGNT presents a much smaller number of variation units (six hundred places considered to be of particular interest and importance for translation). The NA/​UBSGNT text has been extremely influential in NT textual criticism over the last century, to the extent that it has on occasion been characterized as a definitive text or even as a new Textus Receptus. Such a near-​monopoly has not been to the taste of all scholars in the field, and recently other editions have begun to appear (in addition to editions of the Byzantine Text, for which, see more later, we may refer in particular to the editions produced with the support of the Society of Biblical Literature and Tyndale House).13

Contemporary Issues Availability of Digital Images In recent years the field of New Testament textual criticism has been radically transformed by the growth of digital technology. This has had a profound effect on the accessibility of New Testament manuscripts as the primary resource for textual studies. Where once scholars had either to visit the holding institution of each manuscript in person or work with old facsimile editions of the few manuscripts that had been photographed, or later to use microfilm copies of varying quality, now high-​resolution images of an increasing number of manuscripts are available on the Internet.14 As a result of this new situation, the number of textual witnesses that have been transcribed has substantially increased, and the work of transcription itself has grown in prestige in what has been called a “democratisation of the discipline.”15 Indeed (as we shall see in the next sections) the powerful computer tools

13  Michael

W. Holmes (ed), The Greek New Testament: SBL Edition. Dirk Jongkind (ed), The Greek New Testament Produced at Tyndale House Cambridge. 14  Apart from the websites of major libraries and other holding institutions, the digital images of most New Testament manuscripts are gathered together by the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts (http://​www.csntm.org/​manu​scri​pts-​101/​), which has an extensive program of digital photography, and especially in the New Testament Virtual Manuscript Room of the Institute for NT Textual Research at the University of Münster (http://​ntvmr.uni-​muens​ter.de/​home). 15  J.K. Elliott, “Recent Trends in the Textual Criticism of the New Testament: A New Millennium, a New Beginning?,” 125.

Past and Current Trends in New Testament Textual Criticism    137 now used to create new critical editions depend on complete manuscript transcriptions as the raw material for their processing.

Computer Tools The easy accessibility of New Testament manuscripts in the form of digital images, and the growth in the number of complete transcriptions of these manuscripts, has been accompanied by the development of increasingly sophisticated computer programs allowing analysis of this mass of material. The most influential of these is known as the Coherence-​ Based Genealogical Method (CBGM), developed at the Institut für Neutestamentliche Textforschung in Münster (Germany). This rather forbidding title actually communicates the key elements of this approach, namely that it is (like its predecessors) a genealogical method, although it differs from traditional genealogical approaches by focusing on the relationship between texts rather than between manuscripts, and that it is based on a rigorous understanding of coherence, both in the degree of closeness between individual text witnesses (pre-​genealogical coherence) and in the direction of the relationship between them (genealogical coherence). While the actual decisions about coherence are made by the investigator on the basis of normal text-​critical criteria, the computer enables the scholar to keep track of the mass of material and the decisions made, thus allowing the process of identifying coherence to be iteratively refined and gradually building up a picture of the wider relationships between witnesses. In this way the CBGM allows the investigator both to keep track of an enormous amount of material and to progressively refine the decisions made, while at the same time addressing the crucial problem of contamination in the process of transmission (the copying of manuscripts from more than one source, which plays such a critical role in the New Testament manuscript tradition).16

Editio Critica Maior The dream of producing an edition of the Greek New Testament that would take account of all the manuscript evidence has a long history (culminating in the massive editions of Tischendorf and von Soden) but is notoriously difficult to achieve, mainly because of the large number of manuscripts and consequently the huge volume of variant readings, and the fact that the process of transmission is contaminated by copying and/​or correcting from multiple exemplars. As we saw in the previous section, the CBGM has provided a means of working efficiently with this voluminous and complex material, and this in turn has made possible a much more solidly based project for an Editio Critica Maior (ECM) of the Greek New Testament text, whose aim is to document comprehensively the New Testament text of the first millennium (before the dominance of a more standardized form of the text). So

16  A valuable entry-​level to the CBGM (with a commented bibliography of the primary literature) is Tommy Wasserman and Peter J. Gurry, A New Approach to Textual Criticism: An Introduction to the Coherence-​Based Genealogical Method.

138   Simon Crisp far, volumes on the Catholic Epistles, the Acts of the Apostles and the Gospel of Mark have been published, with work in progress at various stages on the remaining writings of the New Testament. The CBGM was progressively implemented as the basis for establishing the ECM text of the Catholic Epistles, and the changes in the running text of these writings have been implemented also in the hand editions Nestle-​Aland (28th edition) and UBS Greek New Testament (5th edition), with plans to follow the same procedure in the future development of these hand editions.17

Byzantine Text As we saw earlier, Westcott and Hort considered the Byzantine Text (Syrian text in their terminology)18 to be a secondary development, a deliberate editorial attempt to produce a polished and stylistically refined form of the text, and therefore of little value for reconstructing the original text of the New Testament. This judgment persisted through the twentieth century and led also to a dismissive attitude toward the mass of later minuscule manuscripts in which this text-​form was preserved and transmitted. The major editions of the Greek New Testament produced in the twentieth century continued to give overwhelming weight (as had Westcott and Hort) to the important majuscule manuscripts of the fourth/​fifth centuries, but also above all to the papyrus manuscripts (the majority of which were discovered only in the twentieth century), which were much older witnesses to the text and considered more reliable for reconstructing the original. One effect of the CBGM has been to fundamentally change this picture by showing in a systematic way how readings previously considered to be Byzantine (and therefore late) can in fact be found throughout the tradition, including in very ancient witnesses. This has led in turn to a re-​evaluation of the value of minuscule manuscripts,19 and indeed to a move away from the whole concept of text families.20 One particular form in which the Byzantine text has been preserved and transmitted is that of lectionaries. These are manuscripts in which the New Testament text is presented not as continuous text (in canonical format), but in the form of the readings (lections) prescribed for the days of the church year. These manuscripts are very numerous (amounting to more than one third of all the Greek MS witnesses) and are constructed according to a complicated system (or systems) reflecting the church calendar. In the past they have been poorly studied for various reasons, but in recent years

17  For a detailed presentation of the background and procedures of the ECM project, see H.A.G. Houghton, D.C. Parker, Peter Robinson, and Klaus Wachtel, “The Editio Critica Maior of the Greek New Testament: Twenty Years of Digital Collaboration.” 18  As noted earlier, there are some complexities with the names given to supposed text families in the Greek New Testament over the decades. In the case of the Byzantine Text, other terms in current use (albeit not entirely synonymous) are Majority Text (the text of the numerical majority of the extant manuscripts) and Ecclesiastical Text (the text officially recognized by the Orthodox Church/​es). 19 See Michael W. Holmes, “From Nestle to Editio Critica Maior: A Century’s Perspective on the New Testament Minuscule Tradition”; Gregory R. Lanier, “Taking Inventory on the ‘Age of the Minuscules’: Later Manuscripts and the Byzantine Tradition within the Field of Textual Criticism.” 20  See Eldon Jay Epp, “Textual Clusters: Their Past and Future in New Testament Textual Criticism.”

Past and Current Trends in New Testament Textual Criticism    139 more sustained and systematic attention is being paid to study of the lectionary tradition. (For more details about lectionaries and their significance, see the essay by Paulson in this volume.)

Goal of New Testament Textual Criticism For most of the history of the discipline of New Testament textual criticism it was axiomatic that the overriding—​if not exclusive—​aim of the study of the manuscript tradition was the reconstruction of the original text. In many cases there was a theological reason for such an assertion (namely, the belief that divine inspiration applied to the autograph of the New Testament), but it also goes back to the historical approach to the study of texts that we saw earlier to be characteristic of the Renaissance in Europe. The idea that the goal of textual criticism is the discovery or the reconstruction of an archetype or authorial text has its roots in the renewal of classical learning in the Renaissance. As in the case of classical authors, so also in the case of the biblical text, it became accepted that older forms of the text were intrinsically more valuable since they brought us closer to the original words of the author. It took the Reformation and especially the Enlightenment, however, to remove the biblical text from ecclesiastical control and permit unfettered study of the variant forms found in the manuscripts, leading eventually to the reconstruction of a form of the text that—​it was claimed—​approximated as closely as possible what was written by the original author/​s. In more recent times, however, two major developments have occurred. First, the complexity of the concept of “original text” has been recognized by defining multiple possible meanings for the term (Epp distinguishes between predecessor text-​form, autographic text-​ form, canonical text-​form and interpretive text-​form21). Second, increasing emphasis has been placed on study of the entire process of transmission of the text, essentially seeing this process as a part of church history. As we saw earlier, the stated aim of the ECM is to document the whole history of the text during the first Christian millennium, with somewhat less emphasis on the running text, which is now referred to as Ausgangstext (a term usually translated as “initial text”) and understood to be the text lying at the base of the extant manuscript tradition (and therefore not necessarily identical with the “original text” or autographic text-​form in Epp’s definition). In more recent times (the past few decades in particular), it has to be said that the optimism of nineteenth and early twentieth-​century scholarship about the certainty with which the original text of the New Testament might be reconstructed has become less assured; the aim of textual criticism has been reformulated as the quest for the initial text (as defined earlier), rather than the original text or autograph. The accessibility of more and more manuscripts (particularly in the form of high-​resolution digital images), and the development of sophisticated computer software to process the output of manuscript collations, means that this initial text may now be recovered with a considerable degree of confidence and with a high level of scientific integrity. The current scholarly consensus is that such methods allow us to reach back to the text of sometime in the late second or early 21 

Eldon J. Epp, “The Multivalence of the Term ‘Original Text’ in New Testament Textual Criticism.”

140   Simon Crisp third century: the extent to which this text corresponds to the original text of the New Testament—​and indeed, how the term “original text” is to be defined—​remain matters of lively scholarly debate.

Orthodox Perspectives From this survey of the highlights of New Testament textual criticism, a number of aspects can be highlighted that are particularly significant from an Orthodox perspective. We may begin by continuing the discussion of the goal of text-​critical work. As we have seen, in Western scholarship this goal was traditionally formulated as the recovery of the original text—​in its strictest definition, the words of the New Testament as they were set down by the pen of the Gospel writers or the Apostle Paul. We have argued further that the hermeneutical background to this goal was set first by the recovery of classical learning in the Renaissance, second by the emphasis on the self-​sufficiency of Scripture in the Protestant Reformation, and third by the rise of rationalist scientific methodology in the Enlightenment. How do these matters look from the perspective of Orthodoxy, which predominated mainly in countries that were to varying degrees isolated from these western European cultural movements either by their geographical position or by their subjugation to Ottoman rule and/​or Communist control? The shift in understanding of the goal of New Testament textual criticism from an exclusive pursuit of the original text to a more nuanced balance of interest in the “initial text” on the one hand and the tradition of transmission on the other, resonates with Orthodox concerns about the importance of the form of the New Testament text officially accepted by the Church. The significance of this difference between emphasis on original text versus respect for traditional Church text has been expressed most succinctly by David Parker (who with his concept of “living text” has perhaps been more influential than anyone else in proposing a new understanding of the aims of New Testament textual criticism).22 Writing about the traditional emphasis of New Testament textual criticism in the West on the recovery or reconstruction of an original text, Parker notes, “This goal has always been at variance with the Orthodox view of the textual tradition, which is to revere and accept the form of the text that emerged from the ancient church, that was broadly adopted by the Byzantine world, and that continues to be read and heard in the liturgy. This takes seriously the text as it became, rather than setting out to reconstruct what the text had been.”23 Since “the text as it became” is essentially what is known as the Byzantine text, the changed assessment of this text-​form in text-​critical studies resonates well with Orthodox concerns about the importance of the form of the text traditionally accepted by the Church.24

22 

D.C. Parker, The Living Text of the Gospels. David Parker, “New Testament Traditions in Byzantium,” in Derek Krueger and Robert S. Nelson (eds), The New Testament in Byzantium, Washington DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2016, pp.21–​32 (here p.26). 24  On the change to a more positive assessment of the Byzantine Text in NTTC, see most recently Michael W. Holmes, “New Testament Textual Criticism in 2020: A (Selective) Survey of the Status Quaestionis,” 5–​7. 23 

Past and Current Trends in New Testament Textual Criticism    141

Case Studies Antoniades/​Orthodox Editions of the Greek New Testament As Christos Karakolis has observed, there is a certain irony in the fact that at almost the same time as the first Greek New Testament edition of Eberhard Nestle was being made, an edition was also being prepared under the direction of Prof. Vasilios Antoniades of the Theological School at Halki, “with the aim of the recovery, insofar as possible, of the oldest ecclesiastically transmitted text, especially that of the Church of Constantinople.”25 At first sight, these words seem to indicate an approach similar to the one outlined so far in this essay, namely a historical-​critical study of manuscript sources with the aim of reconstructing the oldest form of the New Testament text. Further reflection demonstrates, however, that the situation is not so similar: Antoniades made his edition at the request of the Church, and was guided in part by ecclesiastical considerations rather than exclusively scientific ones in several of the textual decisions he documented—​most notably the inclusion of the pericope adulterae and especially the comma johanneum.26 It must also be said that the reception of his edition was not by any means uniformly positive: Although it has become a standard authorized edition of the continuous New Testament text in the Greek-​speaking world, it has not displaced older editions of the lectionary text for liturgical reading in church, and it was considered to be only of limited value by Western scholars (notably those of the Chicago Lectionary Project) who were working on the ecclesiastical text of the New Testament. The result of all this is that there are essentially two versions of the (continuous text) Greek New Testament in circulation in the Greek-​ speaking Orthodox world: the Antoniades edition (as published by the Church of Greece) presenting the traditional Church text for the general public, and the Nestle-​Aland edition providing an eclectic critical text for professional use by biblical scholars.

An Orthodox Review of UBSGNT As noted earlier in this essay, since the mid-​1970s the NA and the UBSGNT editions display the same running text. The two editions remain separate, however, because of their different aims: The NA edition is intended for an audience of scholars, while the UBSGNT is aimed at students and translators. In the case of the UBSGNT, we are fortunate to have at our disposal a lengthy review article by Fr. John Jillions, a priest of the Orthodox Church in America who completed his doctoral studies in Greece.27 Jillions begins his essay by observing that with the fourth edition of the GNT an Orthodox biblical scholar, Prof. Ioannis Karavidopoulos of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 25 

See Christos Karakolis, “Критический текст Нового Завета: православная перспектива,” 179–​ 180. The quotation is from the Introduction to Antoniades’s edition; for the English translation of this, see John Merle Rife, “The Antoniades Greek New Testament,” 57. 26  Rife, “Antoniades Greek New Testament,” 60–​61. On the comma johanneum, see further in what follows. 27   John A. Jillions, “Review Essay: The Greek New Testament, Fourth Revised Edition.”

142   Simon Crisp was added to the editorial committee, and that the critical apparatus now makes extensive use of the Byzantine lectionary tradition, while at the same time substantially increasing the number of patristic citations. He notes further that the focus of GNT on translators gives it a particular resonance for the Orthodox world, since in Russia and eastern Europe in particular the fall of communism has led to an explosion of Bible translation work. The bulk of Jillions’s article consists of a detailed examination of the reference in Matt. 17.21 to the demons going out only by prayer and fasting, the reference to fasting being omitted from the running text of GNT but included in the critical apparatus as a textual variant. His presentation of the different kinds of evidence included in GNT allows him to give a clear account of the structure of this edition. From an Orthodox point of view, however, perhaps the crux of the matter is that while the editors of GNT “are certain that this verse was not originally in Matthew” (p 204), the statement about prayer and fasting is nevertheless important in Orthodox faith and practice. In this light the difference between Western and Eastern approaches to textual criticism, in the author’s view, emerges quite sharply. For a Western (primarily Protestant) approach, “Anything in the text that might be classified as an interpolation by a later hand than the biblical author’s is not the infallible and revealed Word of God” (p 208); “In the Orthodox Church, however, where scriptural revelation is understood as part of the broader context of the Holy Spirit’s life within the Church, there is much less burden placed on the original text as the sole bearer of divine revelation” (p 209). This line of argument allows Jillions to draw two interesting conclusions. First, since in an Orthodox perspective “there is less anxiety concerning those later additions which have become traditional, sanctified by centuries of use in various churches,” Orthodox translators are free “to choose in good conscience alternate readings which may be traditional but not the most ancient.” At the same time there is a recognition that because of the complexities of local transmission (not least the degree of diversity within the Byzantine tradition itself—​including the attestation of “Byzantine” readings in very early manuscripts), the task of an Orthodox translator cannot be as straightforward as simply to “follow the Byzantine text.” As the multiplying number of critical editions of the Byzantine text clearly shows (in addition to Antoniades we may mention the editions of Hodges and Farstad, Robinson and Pierpont, Mullen et al., Pickering),28 the Byzantine textual tradition has its own complex and variegated history.

Comma Johanneum The statement about the “three heavenly witnesses” in 1 John 5.7–​829 has long been a cause célèbre in New Testament textual criticism. It appears to have entered the Greek manuscript tradition at a late stage from Latin sources, and it became doctrinally important as almost the only explicit reference to the Trinity in the New Testament. Because of its 28  Zane C. Hodges and Arthur L. Farstad, The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text; Maurice A. Robinson and William G. Pierpont, The New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform 2005; Roderic L. Mullen with Simon Crisp and D.C. Parker, The Gospel According to John in the Byzantine Tradition; Wilbur N. Pickering, The Greek New Testament According to Family 35. 29  “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness on earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one” (KJV).

Past and Current Trends in New Testament Textual Criticism    143 very poor attestation in Greek manuscripts, its authenticity was hotly debated in many sources: Erasmus, for example, declined to include these words in his first edition, but was persuaded to add them in subsequent editions when one of his critics succeeded in finding a Greek manuscript (albeit a very late one in which the passage may well have been translated from the Latin) that included these words.30 On the Orthodox side, there is a very interesting statement in the Introduction to Antoniades’s edition, to the effect that the editor was minded to omit this passage “since it is entirely unattested in church texts, in the fathers and teachers of the Eastern Church, [and] in the ancient versions,” however, “it is retained upon the opinion of the Holy Synod.”31 From this laconic statement there opens out a whole perspective of debate about the relative weight given to textual scholarship and ecclesiastical authority in Orthodox practice. At the very least one may say that there is a more explicit link in the East than in the West between text-​critical scholarship and Church tradition.

Conclusion One of the consequences of the vastly improved access to New Testament manuscripts is a recognition of the sheer complexity of the transmission of the New Testament text. The traditional picture of a small number of geographically based text families, and a smooth process toward standardization of the text under the aegis of the Church is contradicted by the mass of data now available, which shows that readings of all degrees of antiquity are spread across manuscripts of all different kinds (papyri, majuscules, minuscules, and lectionaries) and from all different locations. Consequently study of the transmission history of the New Testament text has taken on a new significance in comparison with what some scholars now consider to be a fruitless, or even an unnecessary search for the “original text.” “What the text became” therefore (in Parker’s formulation, cited earlier) is now a matter of interest not just for Orthodox Christians but also for textual scholarship in general. The Byzantine or Ecclesiastical text, in particular, gains a new importance from this perspective and is becoming the object of more sustained study; and although the efforts made to date to produce a critical edition of this text have (for a number of reasons) not been notably successful, such an edition must rank high on the list of desiderata for the medium-​term future, both for the Orthodox Churches and for scholars of the New Testament text.

References Kurt Aland, Kurzgefasste Liste der Griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments, ANTF 1, Second Edition. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1994.

30  For

a summary account of the textual history of the comma johanneum, see Metzger/​Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament, 146–​148; a more recent discussion of the issues is Grantley McDonald, “Erasmus and the Johannine Comma (1 John 5.7–​8).” 31  Rife, “Antoniades Greek New Testament,” 61.

144   Simon Crisp Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism (Translated by Erroll F. Rhodes). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans /​Leiden: Brill, 1987. Amy Donaldson, Explicit References to New Testament Variant Readings among Greek and Latin Fathers. PhD thesis, University of Notre Dame, 2009. Available at https://​cur​ate. nd.edu/​show/​5712​m615​k50. J.K. Elliott, “Recent Trends in the Textual Criticism of the New Testament: A New Millennium, a New Beginning?,” Babelao 1 (2012), pp 117–​136. J.K. Elliott, “‘Novum Testamentum editum est’: The Five-​Hundredth Anniversary of Erasmus’s New Testament,” The Bible Translator 67/​1 (2016), pp 9–​28. Eldon J. Epp, “The Multivalence of the Term ‘Original Text’ in New Testament Textual Criticism,” Harvard Theological Review 92 (1999), pp 245–​281. Reprinted in Epp, Perspectives on New Testament Textual Criticism: Collected Essays 1962–​2004 (NovTSup 116). Leiden: Brill, 2005. Eldon Jay Epp, “Textual Clusters: Their Past and Future in New Testament Textual Criticism,” in Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes (eds), The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis, Second Edition (NTTSD 42). Leiden & Boston: Brill, 2013, pp 519–​577. Peter J. Gurry, “The Number of Variants in the Greek New Testament: A Proposed Estimate,” New Testament Studies 62 (2016), pp 97–​121. Peter J. Gurry, “‘A Book Worth Publishing’: The Making of Westcott and Hort’s Greek New Testament (1881),” in Garrick V. Allen (ed), The Future of New Testament Scholarship (WUNT 417). Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019, pp 103–​127. Zane C. Hodges and Arthur L. Farstad, The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text, Second Edition. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1985. Michael W. Holmes, “From Nestle to Editio Critica Maior: A Century’s Perspective on the New Testament Minuscule Tradition,” in Scot McKendrick and Orlaith O’Sullivan (eds), The Bible as Book: The Transmission of the Greek Text. London: British Library /​New Castle, DE: Oak Knoll Press, 2003, pp 123–​137. Michael W. Holmes (ed), The Greek New Testament: SBL Edition. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature /​Bellingham: Logos Bible Software, 2010. Michael W. Holmes, “New Testament Textual Criticism in 2020: A (Selective) Survey of the Status Quaestionis,” Early Christianity 11 (2020), pp 3–​20. H.A.G. Houghton, “Recent Developments in New Testament Textual Criticism,” Early Christianity 2 (2011), pp 245–​258. H.A.G. Houghton, D.C. Parker, Peter Robinson, Klaus Wachtel, “The Editio Critica Maior of the Greek New Testament: Twenty Years of Digital Collaboration,” Early Christianity 11 (2020) pp 97–​117. John A. Jillions, “Review Essay: The Greek New Testament, Fourth Revised Edition,” St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 39/​2 (1995), pp 199–​210. Dirk Jongkind, “The Text and Lexicography of the New Testament in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries,” in Alan J. Hauser and Duane F. Watson (eds), A History of Biblical Interpretation, Volume 3: The Enlightenment through the Nineteenth Century. Grand Rapids, MI/​Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, 2017, pp 274–​299. Dirk Jongkind (ed), The Greek New Testament Produced at Tyndale House Cambridge. Wheaton: Crossway, 2017. Christos Karakolis, “Критический текст Нового Завета: православная перспектива,” in M.G. Seleznev (ed), Современная библеистика и предание Церкви. Материалы

Past and Current Trends in New Testament Textual Criticism    145 VII Международной богословской конференции Русской Православной Церкви. Moscow: Department of Church Postgraduate and Doctoral Studies, 2016, pp 171–​184. Ioannes Karavidopoulos, “Textual Criticism in the Orthodox Church: Present State and Future Prospects,” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 47 (2002), pp 381–​396. Gregory R. Lanier, “Taking Inventory on the ‘Age of the Minuscules’: Later Manuscripts and the Byzantine Tradition within the Field of Textual Criticism,” Currents in Biblical Research 16/​2 (2018), pp 263–​308. Grantley McDonald, “Erasmus and the Johannine Comma (1 John 5.7–​8),” The Bible Translator 67/​1 (2016), pp 42–​55. Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration, Fourth Edition. New York: Oxford University Press 2005. Roderic L. Mullen with Simon Crisp and D.C. Parker, The Gospel According to John in the Byzantine Tradition. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2007. D.C. Parker, The Living Text of the Gospels. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1997. David Parker, “New Testament Traditions in Byzantium,” in Derek Krueger and Robert S. Nelson (eds), The New Testament in Byzantium. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2016, pp 21–​32. Wilbur N. Pickering, The Greek New Testament According to Family 35, Second Edition. Privately published, 2015. John Merle Rife, “The Antoniades Greek New Testament,” in Ernest Cadman Colwell and Donald W. Riddle (eds), Prolegomena to the Study of the Lectionary Text of the Gospels (Studies in the Lectionary Text of the Greek New Testament, Vol. 1). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1933, pp 57–​66. Maurice A. Robinson and William G. Pierpont, The New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform 2005. Southborough MA: Chilton Book Publishing, 2005. Tommy Wasserman and Peter J. Gurry, A New Approach to Textual Criticism: An Introduction to the Coherence-​Based Genealogical Method (Resources for Biblical Study, 40). Atlanta: SBL Press /​Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2017.

Pa rt I I

C A N ON

Chapter 9

T he Em erg e nc e of Biblical Canons i n Orthod ox Chri st ia ni t y Lee Martin McDonald Introduction Determining the origin of ancient biblical canons is challenging because no ancient sources tell how the Bible was formed. Modern questions about its formation were of little concern to churches in the first three centuries. Because of the more autocephalous nature of eastern churches and differences in the issues they addressed, perspectives on the scope of their scriptures varied from location to location. The surviving evidence is mostly from the fourth and later centuries, when significant responses to canon questions are more apparent. The significant differences in churches however were not over the scope of their scriptures, but rather over christological, hermeneutical, and heretical issues facing them. Several current scholars have addressed these issues and the emergence of Orthodox biblical canons (Vasiliadis 2004; Pentiuc 2014a:10–​66, 322–​330; and Scanlin 1996). The available evidence for the emergence of Old Testament (OT) and New Testament (NT) canons comes from church father citations, canon lists, local church councils, surviving scriptural manuscripts, and translations of the ancient Jewish and Christian religious texts. It was hardly possible to establish any Christian scripture canon until there was broad agreement over the identity of Jesus, and that matter was broadly addressed at the Council of Nicea (325); after that, multiple biblical canon lists appear in various locations in the eastern and western churches. The christological and eschatological interpretations of the church’s OT scriptures and their earliest traditions about Jesus circulated in churches from their beginning, even before any NT texts were written and discussions about their scripture collections emerged. Before Nicaea there was considerable agreement in churches on most of the books that later formed their biblical canons despite continuing differences over some disputed books. After Nicea fewer noncanonical books appear in church citations, but variations in canon catalogs continued even after broad agreement on the identity of Jesus. Syrian

150   Lee Martin McDonald churches, for example, did not initially accept the Pococke NT Epistles (2 Peter, 2–​3 John, Jude), and Revelation. Initially, they welcomed Tatian’s Diatessaron as scripture as well as 3 Corinthians. In the fourth century Eusebius listed the “recognized” NT (homologoumena) books, namely, the four Gospels, Acts, Epistles of Paul, 1 John, 1 Peter, possibly Revelation), and the “disputed” (antilegomena) books (James, 2 Peter, 2–​3 John, and Jude), and then the “not genuine” (nothoi) books (Acts of Paul, Shepherd of Hermas, Apocalypse of Peter, Epistle of Barnabas, Didache, and possibly also Revelation and the Gospel of the Hebrews; Hist. eccl. 3.25.1–​5). He then goes on to distinguish these books from several pseudonymous heretical books written in apostolic names (3.25.6–​7). The lists of accepted NT and OT books varied for centuries, and local churches seldom had complete collections of their books until the thirteenth century, when the Paris Bibles were produced with small letters and thinner paper. Even then, mostly scholars, clergy, and students had access to them (see Liere 2014:4–​15, and Light 2011:228–​246). The traditions about Jesus and the creeds reflecting them were long established in churches well before the fourth century and later were included in the Church’s NT canon. The identity, teaching, and mission of Jesus were reflected in multiple creeds, as well as baptismal and eucharistic creeds and in Christian songs, e.g., the Odes of Solomon (ca. 125), circulating in churches from their beginnings. Books that ignored or rejected those traditions could not have been welcomed, but some debates about the identity of Jesus continued even after the decisions of the Council of Nicea. The books included in the NT canon reflected those sacred traditions about Jesus. Rejected writings were not believed to reflect those sacred Christian traditions (Gospel of Judas).

The Church’s First Authorities Authority in early Christianity began with Jesus the acknowledged Lord of the Church (Rom 10:9; Matt 28:19), but also the not yet finally defined Jewish scriptures, primarily in the LXX. The apostolic authority soon followed and was vested not only in the apostles but also in those they appointed as leaders in the churches, who also transmitted the apostolic traditions (or regula fidei), the primary proclamation of the early churches along with their implications for Christian faith. The early and developing creedal formulations began in the apostolic community and expanded over time but largely with added clarification in subsequent generations. However, Christian faith began with an encounter with Jesus and subsequently with christological and eschatological interpretations of the Jewish scriptures.

Jesus Although there were multiple authorities in early Christianity, its foundational authority was Jesus of Nazareth, who was believed to have a special relationship with God and through whom salvation from sins and hope for the future were found. The ancient Christian sources reflect and transmit that faith. As the church began, other authority figures and artifacts also emerged, namely apostolic leadership, creedal formulations reflecting their

The Emergence of Biblical Canons in Orthodox Christianity    151 sacred traditions, and a new scripture distinguished from their first scriptures by the new designations “Old” and “New Testaments.” The heart of all of the authorities and sacred traditions was the identity, resurrection, and mission of Jesus. Several of those traditions were placed in creedal formulations, e.g., Rom 10:9; 1 Cor 15:3–​8; Phil 2:6–​11; 1 Tim 3:16. While apostles were acknowledged as authorities because of their connection with Jesus and their witness to his resurrection (Acts 1:15–​26; cf. 1 Cor 9:1, 15:5–​9), the authority of their new scriptures was not initially recognized except by a few apostolic fathers and thereafter (e.g., Justin, 1 Apol. 64–​66). Apostolic authority was extended to writings by apostles or those closely associated with them (Mark and Luke). In the second century, a number of pseudonymous Christian writings were produced in apostolic names, including more than eighty known gospels, acts, epistles, and apocalypses, e.g., Gospel of Peter, Apocalypse of Peter, Acts of Paul, and likely more that have been lost. This parallels more than a 100 such Jewish pseudonymous writings in prophetic names circulating before and during early Christian churches. Apostolic authority was rooted in a close association with Jesus, and the apostles held a place of primacy in the church from its beginning (e.g., Acts 1:21–​26; 1 Cor 9:1, 12:28, 15:3–​8). Later apostolic authority was transmitted faithfully through the Church’s bishops as Ignatius, Justin, and Irenaeus claimed. Although initially the role of the prophet in the church was prominent (Acts 13:1–​2; 1 Cor 12–​14), its significance was greatly diminished by abuse in the second century (e.g., Lucian, Passing of Peregrinus 5.11–​16; Didache 9–​13). This was anticipated in the NT (Matt 7: 21–​23, 24:5) and consequently the role of teachers gained greater priority and esteem and their teaching was reflected in early proto-​orthodox teaching. The level of their influence in second-​century Christianity has been a subject of debate, but their views are reflected in the early church fathers even before Nicea. Along with the bishops and teachers, other offices of the church were also recognized as authorities (e.g., elder, deacon), along with an emerging and growing sacred tradition believed to have come from Jesus and the Apostles and transmitted by subsequent bishops (Ignatius and Irenaeus). The heart of this tradition (the church’s regula fidei) was the proclamation about Jesus and its implications for Christian faith. In time, the identity of Jesus and implications of that tradition for Christian faith became more specific, especially that the God of Jesus was also creator of heaven and earth. The best-​known “heresies” of the late first and second centuries included the Docetics and Marcionites. Gnostics with the Marcionites rejected the creator God of the OT (Demiurge) who they believed was cruel and not the Unknown (or Alien) God of Jesus.

Tradition References to early church tradition (paravdosiß) are common in the NT, especially in letters attributed to Paul, e.g., 1 Cor 7:10; 11:2, 6, 23; 15:1–​11; and 2 Thess 2:15, 3:6. For Paul, this tradition was the Gospel that he proclaimed. He believed it was a “revelation” from God handed on in the churches by those who preceded him in faith. The author of Epistle to Diognetus (ca. 150–​200) claimed that “a disciple of the apostles . . . administers that which has been handed over (paradoqevnta) to those who are becoming disciples of truth” (Ep.

152   Lee Martin McDonald Diog. 11:1). He claims this word comes from Christ, was proclaimed by the apostles (11:3), and that the “faith of the Gospels” was guarded “by the tradition of the apostles” (11:6; cf. also 1 Clem 7:2). Irenaeus admonishes those in every church “who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world” (Haer. 3.3.1, ANF). Soon afterward, he relates how the “church in Rome” dispatched “a most powerful letter to the Corinthians [1 Clement],” exhorting them to pursue peace, to renew their faith, and declare “the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles.” Summarizing their faith, Irenaeus concludes that those who follow it can learn from “the apostolic tradition of the Church,” adding that, through the succession of apostles, “the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us” (3.3.3, ANF). The early church’s sacred tradition formed its primary authority before there was a Christian Scripture. Irenaeus asked where his readers would find the truth if the apostles “had not left us writings,” and answers, “would it not be necessary to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the churches?” (3.4.1 ANF). The NT words for tradition (paradi/domi or paradouvnai, and para/dosiß) are sometimes coupled with receiving (pare/labon) tradition as in 1 Cor 15:2–​3. These terms are used in reference to the Church’s sacred teachings reflecting its revelation or proclamation (compare Rom 6:17; 1 Cor 11:2 [pare/dwka], 23 [pare/labon and pare/dwka]; 15:2–​3 [pare/ dwka]; 2 Pet 2:21 [paradoqei/shß] and cf. also Luke 1:2; Acts 16:4 [paredi/dosan]; Büchsel 1964:171–​173). In 1 Cor 15:2–​3, Paul states that one’s salvation depends on receiving the more clearly balanced tradition in 15:3–​8 (cf. Rom 10:9). In the second century, those traditions (regula fidei) about Jesus and their implications for faith circulating in churches were cited to deal with emerging challenges that included heresy, local persecution, the death of the apostles, and the delay of Jesus’s return. These challenges were also met with the expanded role of bishops and church order, clarification of the regula fidei (or church tradition), expanded creeds, and especially the recognition of Christian scripture (McDonald 2013).

The Church’s First Scriptures From their beginning the churches welcomed the scriptures circulating among their Jewish siblings that were not yet fully defined, but they included the Pentateuch and a not-​ yet-​defined collection of “prophets.” Marcion and the Gnostics questioned the authority of those OT scriptures despite the NT authors regularly citing many of those scriptures. Most of the OT texts were cited from the LXX, but occasionally, especially in Paul, the Hebrew scriptures were also cited (for details, see Lim 2013:167–​177). Those scriptures included several additional books in the LXX that were not included in the Hebrew scriptures and were later called “deuterocanonical” as opposed to “protocanonical”1 scriptures.

1  These designations for the additional LXX and Tanak books began in 1566 with Sixtus of Siena, who identified this literature in his Bibliotheca Sancta as “Deuterocanonical” (Deuterocanonicos) and “Protocanonical” (Protocanonicos) for books in the Tanak/​Hebrew Bible/​MT.

The Emergence of Biblical Canons in Orthodox Christianity    153

The Words of Jesus The numerous citations, quotations, and allusions to the NT writings in the Apostolic Fathers (ca. 90–​150) do not generally reflect the authority later attached to the NT writings, but the words of Jesus in them were regularly cited in a scriptural authoritative manner. More specifically, when his words were cited, they functioned like scripture, but seldom had the usual scriptural designations such as “the Scripture says” (hJ gra/fh le/gei ), “it is written” (ge/graptai), “that which is written” (to/ gegra/mmenon), or comparable formulas regularly used in reference to the OT Scriptures (Metzger 1968; Penner 2010). Scholars of early Christianity seldom agree on when such designations began to be applied to NT writings, but certainly the words of Jesus always had a Scripture-​like status from the very beginning e.g., 1 Cor 7:10, 12, 17, 25; 1 Thess 4:15; Matt 28:18; and especially 1 Tim 5:18, in which both Deut 25:4 and Jesus’s words in Matt 10:10//​Lk 10:7 are both introduced with the words, “for the scripture says.” The second-​century church fathers most frequently cited the words of Jesus in the Gospels, but not the Gospels themselves. However, it is not overstating the case to say that, for the church, “if Jesus said it” the matter was settled, whatever “it” was. He was the Lord of the church (Rom 10:9), and his words from the beginning had significant scripture-​like authority attached to them (Matt 28:19). Clement of Rome acknowledges the authority of the words of Jesus as follows: We should especially remember the words the Lord Jesus spoke when teaching about gentleness and patience. For he said: “Show mercy, that you may be shown mercy; forgive, that it may be forgiven you. As you do, so it will be done to you; as you give, so it will be given to you; as you judge, so you will be judged; as you show kindness, so will kindness be shown to you; the amount you dispense will be the amount your receive.” Let us strengthen one another in this commandment and these demands, so that we may forge ahead, obedient to his words.” (1 Clem. 13.1–​4, LCL, emphasis added)

And again, Why do we divide and tear asunder the members of Christ, and raise up strife against our own body . . . ? Remember the words of the Lord Jesus; for he said, “Woe unto that man: it were good for him if he had not been born, than that he should offend one of my elect.” (1 Clem. 46.7–​8, LCL, emphasis added)

The devotion of Ptolemy, the gnostic teacher (ca. 160), to the “words of the Savior” as his authority for instruction and for understanding of the Law of Moses is seen in his well-​ known Letter to Flora: That is what happens to people who do not see what follows from the words of the Saviour. For a house or city divided against itself cannot stand, our Saviour declared. . . . First one must learn that the whole Law which is contained in the Pentateuch of Moses has not been decreed by some one person, I mean by God alone; but there are also some commandments in it given by men; and that it is tripartite the words of the Saviour teach us. . . . How this came about you may learn from the words of the Saviour” (Flor. 3.5, 8; 4.1, 4; cf. 7.5, 10; Stevenson trans., 1957:92–​93. Emphasis added)

For Clement, Ptolemy, and others after them, the words of Jesus functioned as scripture even though the specific scriptural formulas were often not used.

154   Lee Martin McDonald Citations of, or allusions to, the words of Jesus in the NT and early church fathers were quite common and always show that they were viewed authoritatively like Scripture. This may reflect an early stage of canon formation with the appeal to the words of Jesus found in the Gospels and regularly functioning as scripture. Campenhausen rightly observes a distinction between the authoritative words of Jesus and the Gospels or letters that contain them. The words of Jesus were given prominence in written and oral tradition and had a scripture-​like status in the church from the beginning, but this did not extend to the texts where they were found (Campenhausen 1968:118–​121). While the Gospels were widely used in conveying the Christian proclamation, they were not cited as scripture or by their writings generally until the middle to late second century, when apostolic persons began to have greater significance in the churches. That is also when pseudonymous writings in apostolic names began to appear (McDonald 2004). Until the mid-​second century, churches gave no prominence either to authors of Christian writings. Campenhausen concludes that although the Gospels were intended from the outset to be used (or read) in churches alongside their OT Scriptures, they did not claim or receive exclusive authority initially (Campenhausen 198:123). The history of Gospel transmission with multiple variants affirms this.

Early Church Creeds The early Christian creeds are largely summaries of the sacred apostolic traditions circulating in churches. The church fathers regularly cited NT texts to support these creeds even before those texts were called scripture. The brief and simply constructed initial Christian creeds preceded later and more formal and strictly worded creeds like the Old Roman Creed, Apostles’ Creed, and the Nicene Creed that generally reflect the earliest teachings of the churches. Early NT creeds include Rom 1:3–​4; 10:9–​10; 1 Cor 8:6; 1 Tim 2:5–​6; and 1 Pet 3:18–​21; but also Phil 2:6–​11 and the summaries in 1 Cor 15:3–​8 and Phil 2:6–​11; plus some second-​century creeds (Ignatius, Trall. 9, and Polycarp, Phil. 2). The early creeds are generally focused on the identity and activity of Jesus as Lord of the Church, and the later second-​century creeds that overlap with them also address current issues facing churches including, for example, the Father Almighty as creator of heaven and earth, which reflects the Marcionite and Gnostic rejections of the creator god of the OT. Although this is affirmed in a less formal way in 1 Cor 8:6, it is not a prominent NT focus. The Apostolic Tradition followed by the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and others include most of the same affirmations. The earlier second-​century creeds were less formal or strict in their wording and regularly reflect core NT teachings and generally summarized current traditions and teachings circulating in the churches and besides referring to God as creator, and soon also affirmation of the Holy Spirit. The earliest creeds did not refer to Jesus’s virgin birth, but Ignatius (ca. 115) describes it as an essential ingredient of Christian belief (Eph. 7:2; cf. 18:2; but especially 19:1: “the virginity of Mary” (hJ parqeni/​a Mari/​aß) and her giving birth; cf. also Magn. 11). Irenaeus (ca. 170–​180) later included it in his core teaching (Haer. 1.10.1), saying later that Jesus was the “creator” who “condescended to be born of a virgin” (Haer. 3.4.2). Later baptismal creeds tended to include a Trinitarian focus along with affirmation of the virgin birth, the resurrection of the dead, and life everlasting. Such wording soon became more consistent and less flexible.

The Emergence of Biblical Canons in Orthodox Christianity    155 Second-​and third-​century creeds (Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus), and especially those in the fourth century (Old Roman Creed, on which the Apostles’ Creed and Nicene Creed rely) depend heavily and reflect most elements of earlier creeds, but often have more detail and stricter wording. They often address current heresies challenged by orthodox teachers. Hippolytus of Rome may have written or participated in writing parts of the Apostolic Tradition at the end of the second or early third century that reflects Roman baptismal confessions and perhaps also Alexandrian baptismal affirmations. Though initially most creeds were more binitarian, focusing mostly on the Father and the Logos (Son), the Apostolic Tradition was proto-​trinitarian (Hippolytus, Refutations 10.28–​30). The fluidity of the earlier creedal formulations contrasts significantly with Origen, whose strict adherence to the articles of the creed was absolutely essential to “save the man who believes them.” He claimed that all articles must be believed, otherwise “the man would be defective” in his faith (In ev. Ioann 32.16). The later creeds emphasize what was omitted earlier or challenged later regarding the God and Father of Jesus the Son as creator, his virgin birth, the Holy Spirit, the resurrection, and life everlasting. After Hippolytus, the inclusion of the Holy Spirit was included in all subsequent orthodox creeds. Because Gnostic and Marcionite beliefs denied that the unknown God of Jesus was the creator of heaven and earth, subsequent creedal formulations included affirmations of God as creator as well as the added emphasis on the Holy Spirit and life everlasting (Chadwick 1990:42–​45). Other items were also added at later times and at various church councils addressing those issues facing churches, but the core traditions from the beginning did not change even when the creeds became more specific in wording. That is true in later ecclesiastical divisions over specific wording at the Chalcedon Council or later in the Filioque—​ the controversy on the double procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son. Campenhausen argues for a stabilized core tradition from the Church’s beginning and contends that “the development and advance that takes place in the Church is never such that the origins in Christ and the original faith of the apostles are fundamentally superseded and eliminated.” He goes on to add that “progress and development within the Church’s history have always been on the lines of regrasping the original truth, of fresh interpretation, application, making actual what Christ once and for all has done and promised.” He concludes: “For all Christian Churches, the tradition of the New Testament—​understood and interpreted according to its spirit—​always remains the standard.” He observes that later creedal formulations reflect the current historical and doctrinal concerns, but their authors insist that the new affirmations were clear “from the beginning.” Campenhausen contends that the core Christian faith remained unchanged despite later additions that address current concerns (Campenhausen 1968:17–​18).

Early Christian Canons As interest in the notion of a fixed canon of the Church’s scriptures emerged in the fourth century, there was little interest in biblical canons in eastern Orthodox churches as it was the case in western churches around the middle to late fourth century and thereafter. As in the west, eastern churches had multiple creedal formulations and various views on the scope of their OT and NT scripture collections. While there is considerable overlap in the

156   Lee Martin McDonald contents of scripture collections with churches in the West, as well as in most of their theological perspectives, forming a fixed OT or NT collection was never a priority for most eastern churches. In his Thirty-​Ninth Festal Letter (367), Athanasius affirmed the protocanonical Jewish biblical books as the Church’s OT scriptures and all the NT scriptures, but he also welcomed the private reading of some deuterocanonical texts, namely Wisdom, Sirach, Esther, Judith, and Tobit, as well as Didache and Shepherd, but he insists that that they were not “canonical” (kanonizo/menon) and only “read” (ajnagignwsko/mena). He rejected reading of any of the so-​called apocryphal texts that he considered either heretical or pseudonymously written in prominent prophetic or apostolic names. He noted that those texts assigned earlier dates “to lead astray the simple” and advance their views. Athanasius shows that false dating was happening in the fourth century. Clare Rothschild has suggested that this was likely the origin of the Muratorian Fragment in the late fourth or fifth century, namely, a “fraud” designed to make a later view on the emerging biblical canon appear earlier and more acceptable (see Rothschild 2018). Like some church fathers at that time, he did not accept the canonical status of Esther, but allowed it to be read among his noncanonical “readable” (ajnagignwsko/mena) in contrast to books “not read publicly” that he called “apocrypha” (see Pentiuc 2014a:115–​116). He allowed the deuterocanonical noted earlier to be read especially to new converts. Churches have not agreed on the scope of this collection of “readable” texts or what to call them. (For a helpful discussion of this, see Brakke 1994 and 2010.) Eastern Orthodox Christians generally followed Athanasius’s model and like him reserved the designation “apocrypha” for heretical or pseudonymously written texts. Jerome was the first to designate the deuterocanonical writings as “apocrypha” and, like Cyril of Jerusalem, Rufinus, and Epiphanius, he did not want them read at all. Athanasius was the first known church father to speak of a fixed collection of the Church’s scriptures as “canonical” texts.

Canons in Early Christianity In antiquity the notion of “canon” (Grk., kanw/n) was initially and regularly understood as measurements, guidelines, or rules to follow whether in art, architecture, philosophy, rhetoric, or poetry, and models to be followed in writing. The notion came also to be used of the Church’s regula fidei, that is as guidelines for faith and conduct. These canons for faith and conduct were always rooted in the Church’s earliest traditions of and about Jesus and their implications for faith, mission, and conduct (McDonald 2017a:76–​117). The notion of holding fast to “what we have attained” in Phil 3:16 is at the heart of “canon” tradition. Though this text does not use kanon, it is a “rule” like we see in Gal 6:16, that is, a “rule” of faith or boundaries or limitations as in 2 Cor 10:13, 15–​16. In the fourth century, Athanasius, following earlier Hellenistic Alexandrian models, used “canon” to identify a specific collection of authoritative scriptural books. This was not unlike the Alexandrian canons of writers (Quintilian, The Orator’s Education; Inst. Orat. X.1.54 and 59). Quintilian notably speaks of the Greeks’ notion of hexis, that is, guidelines or rules for elocution and theoretical knowledge (10.1.59). He identifies for the Greeks

The Emergence of Biblical Canons in Orthodox Christianity    157 those who model this hexis, especially Homer, but after him others, such as Pindar and the nine lyric poets, and also those who do not rise to that level. He later lists Cicero as the best of Roman authors (Quintilian, Inst. Orat. 10.1.123). As models for a collection of sacred Scriptures that form the norm for churches, such works were likely in view, given that the first two persons to make such lists to refer to the Christian scriptures were Origen and Athanasius, both from Alexandria (McDonald 2013:13–​49). “Canon” began to be used in reference to divinely recognized books that have their roots in Jesus and the earliest church traditions about him that were a binding norm (Beyer 1965:600–​602). If a text was considered “scripture,” it was always considered both inspired and authoritative, that is “canon” as a divine rule. The Greek term “canon” is used in the late first and early second centuries to identify the canon or rule of faith, is the church’s sacred traditions. Clement of Rome (1 Clem. 7.2) indicates that the Christian proclamation was the “rule of our tradition” (thvß parado/sewß hJmwvn kano/na). Similarly, Irenaeus uses the designation for “the rule of truth” received at baptism (Haer.1.9.4). Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 6.13.3) says that Clement of Alexandria refers to an “ecclesiastical canon” or “body of truth” (kanw/n ejkklhsiastiko\ß). This was common among second-​century church fathers and even in the closing of the mid-​to-​late second-​ century 3 Corinthians pseudonymously written in Paul’s name to address the perceived Gnostic heresies (Hovhanessian 2000:11–​16). Its author writes, “whoever abides by the rule which he received through the blessed prophets and the holy Gospel, he shall receive a reward from the Lord, [and when he is risen from the dead shall obtain eternal life]” (trans. Schneemelcher 1992, 2:256. Emphasis added). The most important sacred church traditions from the beginning began with an understanding of who Jesus was, what he taught, what he did, his fate, and their implications for Christian faith. Those traditions including the Church’s first scriptures, their OT, were always considered binding for Christians, and by the second century several Christian writings from the first century also began to function authoritatively in some churches. By the end of the second century several church fathers began calling some of them scripture and most of those texts were included in the Church’s NT. Other Christian writings were added later to a growing collection of sacred traditions, and the writings that supported the core traditions circulating in the churches, along with several summary creeds, all constituted their regula fidei. Many Christian writings that functioned like authoritative Christian scripture eventually began to be called “scripture” in the second century, and several later formed the NT canon. The sacred traditions, emerging creeds, and some NT writings were cited to address emerging second-​century “heretical” teachings and current crises. The sacred authority recognized in the Church’s traditions and creeds were soon applied to several first-​century Christian texts, especially the Gospels (mostly Matthew) and several of Pauline letters. The number of citations of first-​century Christian texts in the second century reflects their authoritative function like scripture accompanied with an implied belief in their divine authority. The traditions, creeds or rules of faith, and some Christian writings, were all viewed as all divinely authoritative canons in the Church’s regula fidei. Those authorities influenced the decisions of local and also the seven ecumenical church councils. By the end of the second century, an imprecise but growing collection of recognized Christian scriptures was emerging. Church leaders believed that this collection reflected

158   Lee Martin McDonald and affirmed the sacred “canonical” traditions (regula fidei) passed on in the churches and many had been citing them in a scriptural manner earlier in support of those sacred traditions. As the number of recognized Christian scriptures grew, several church fathers began distinguishing them from other religious texts that they believed were pseudonymous or heretical. As a result, a majority of church fathers eventually rejected them, e.g., The Gospel of Judas (Irenaeus, Haer. 1.31.1). By the middle to late fourth century, several church fathers began to promote and list a fixed collection of OT and NT scriptures for reading in the churches, but the contents of those collections varied for centuries longer, despite the considerable overlap in both scripture collections. Also, there was broad agreement in most creeds in the East and West, as the history of church councils attests, but later christological distinctions led to divisions over the Monophysite position in Oriental-​Eastern (Chalcedon, 451) and subsequent Greek East and Latin West disputes as the later double procession Filioque controversy, beginning in 589, 680, and for centuries thereafter, attests.

Factors Leading to Christian Biblical Canons As second-​century church fathers cited NT texts to support their sacred traditions and creeds, whether in regard to leadership, organization, baptism, ordination, or Christian conduct, those writings took on a more important role in ongoing Church life. In the late first century, Clement of Rome, for example, famously advises the church at Corinth to “leave behind empty and frivolous thoughts and come to the famous and venerable rule of our tradition” (1 Clem. 7:2). Irenaeus (1.9.4ff.) identifies the “canon of truth” or “canon of faith” as that truth that summarizes the most common core elements of Christian faith and doctrine circulating in churches at that time. This was his regula fidei or rule/​canon of faith. In the fourth century kanon began to appear in some church fathers as a “catalog” or “list” of sacred texts, and even then, those catalogs were understood as having divine authority as we see in Athanasius list of scriptures (pars. 5–​7). Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 6.13.3) cites Clement of Alexandria as accepting the “ecclesiastical” canon as authoritative as Scripture and describes the canon of the church as a harmony between the Law and the Prophets on one side and the covenant instituted by the incarnation of the Lord on the other (see his Strom. 4.15.98.3; 6.15.125; 7.15.90.2; see also Hippolytus, Ref. 10.5.2). Citations or references to NT texts began early in the second century, as we see in Ignatius (Ignatius, Smyrna 3.2) and in Basilides (ca. fl. 130–​140), who, according to Hippolytus (Refutation of Heresies 7.22.4), cites three of the four Gospels and four letters of Paul as Scripture (Romans, 1–​2 Corinthians, and Ephesians; see Hippolytus, Ref. 7.25.1–​3 and 7.26.7), and employs the scriptural formula “as it is written” in reference to them (Grant 1965:121–​ 124). The author of 2 Clement (ca. 140–​150) writes: “For the Lord says in the Gospel” (le/ levgei ga;r oJ kuvrioß ejn tw/ eujaggelivw) (2 Clem 8.5, emphasis added). This is similar to 2 Clement 14.1, where the author cites Jesus’s reference to Jer 7:11 in Matt 21:13. That author typically cites the words of Jesus in a scriptural manner (e.g., 2 Clem 2:4; cf. 4.1–​5, 5.1).

The Emergence of Biblical Canons in Orthodox Christianity    159

Orthodox Churches and Scripture The origin of the Orthodox churches is built on the sacred traditions passed on in the earliest churches in the east that have their roots in first-​century Christianity. While those churches grew and expanded, like other churches, they addressed new and challenging crises with their earliest core traditions and the church’s leading proto-​orthodox church fathers. Scanlin observes, in contrast to the western churches, that the Orthodox “concept of canon, which appears to tolerate a degree of difference when compared to attitudes in the West” (Scanlin 1996:308). Pentiuc agrees and speaks of the Orthodox holding to an “intricate and more relaxed view on canonicity” that aligns “closely with the position of prerabbinic Judaism” and observes that the emerging church made use of the LXX additions “as proof-​text material for their preaching of the Messiahship of Jesus” (Pentiuc 2014b:342).

Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches The eastern churches regularly use deuterocanonical books in their liturgies. Some of their translations place these books among the Hebrew Bible books according to genre (history, poetry, prophetic), but others, like Luther, place them between the HB books and NT books. Although the Orthodox regularly included Revelation in their NT canon after the fall of Constantinople (1453), they do not cite it in their liturgies. The Oriental Orthodox had a mixed reception of 2 Peter, 2–​3 John, Jude, and Revelation—​at least through the fourth century. As Constantinou observes, Revelation is the only NT book that “claims divine inspiration for itself, calls itself a prophecy, orders that its content be conveyed to the churches, blesses those who read it, blesses those who hear it, and curses those who tamper with it.” He adds that the Apocalypse was only gradually (beginning in 611) included in Orthodox NT canons, especially after the fall of Constantinople (1453), but not in Orthodox liturgies. He asks how a book can truly be canonical if it cannot be read in the Church and is banned from the lectionary (Constantinou 2012:52–​61). Eusebius had doubts about this book and used three chapters to describe Dionysius’s doubts about its authorship (Hist. eccl. 7.24–​26). It is interesting that the only NT book that claims to be a divinely inspired revelation was one of the most questioned and disputed NT books and one of the least copied in early Christianity. Likewise, 1 Enoch was initially welcomed in the NT as an inspired prophetic work (Jude 14, citing 1 En 1:9) and some of its expressions are reflected in Jesus words in Matthew 19:28 and 25:31 (“Son of Man sitting on his throne of glory” in Parables of Enoch; cf. more examples in McDonald 2017a:302–​308). It was cited as scripture in Jude 14 cf. 1 En 1:9; Ep. Barn. 4:3, citing Enoch with “it is written” (gevgraptai), and 16:5–​6, summarizing 1 En 106:19–​107; cf. especially 91:13 and 1 En 89:56–​74. Similarly, it is cited as scripture in Irenaeus (Haer 4.16.2 and 4.36.4), Clement of Alexandria (Strom. 3.9), Tertullian (Apol.22; De cultu 19.1), and Origen (Cels. 5.52–​55; De Principiis 1.3.3; 4.4.8). After Origen, support for Enoch declined considerably except in Ethiopian Christianity. Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 7.32.19) cites Anatolius, bishop of Laodicea (died ca. 282), referring to 1 Enoch 72:6, 9, 31, 32. If Eusebius is correct, Anatolius is one of the last-​known church fathers to refer to Enoch as a scriptural authority (for a

160   Lee Martin McDonald more complete listing of Enoch as scripture in early Christianity, see Vanderkam 1996:44–​ 61; McDonald 2017a:361–​369). Enoch’s popularity and translocal circulation in first-​century Palestine and among the Dead Sea Scrolls helps explain its use in early Christianity. Orthodox Christians never had a formal ecumenical council decision on the scope of their biblical canon, but their scriptures are roughly though not exactly the same as those in the West. They welcomed all of the protocanonical books, including eventually also Esther, and several of the additional LXX books, but they distinguished them from protocanonical books. While they use them in their liturgies and lectionaries, like Athanasius they do not call them canonical scriptures, but rather “noncanonical readable” texts. The Orthodox churches vary on which disputable or readable books to use in the liturgies, but all accept the protocanonical Hebrew scriptures. They welcome all of the NT books, but initially Syrian churches rejected the minor NT texts noted earlier and for a while welcomed the Diatessaron and 3 Corinthians. Ethiopian Orthodox welcome other texts in their OT and NT, including Enoch, Epistle of Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas, 1–​2 Clement, Psalms of Solomon, and 3 Corinthians. The Armenian churches included for centuries 3 Corinthians, the Repose of Beloved Disciple [John], and others less known). The Ethiopian Orthodox churches include more books in both their OT and NT.

Emergence of Orthodox Scriptural Canons The emergence of second-​century proto-​orthodoxy, which later developed into official church orthodoxy, expanded both in the majority of churches in the East and West with broad agreement on the Church’s core traditions and scriptures (Irenaeus, Haer. 3.17.4). Later that included a larger collection of Christian texts that formed the NT. Irenaeus’s scriptures consisted of a still fluid collection of OT texts and at least the four Gospels. He writes, “the entire Scriptures, the prophets and the four Gospels, can be clearly, unambiguously understood by all” (Haer. 2.27.2, ANF). He earlier mentions “apostles” in his collection of scriptures (Haer. 1.3.6) but does not identify them. He was familiar with several of the writings of Paul but mentions only the prophets and the Gospels. Later Eusebius lists Irenaeus’s scriptures, but that might only be Eusebius’s listing of works cited by Irenaeus (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 5.8.2–​8), including his acceptance of Shepherd of Hermas as scripture (5.8.7–​8). The first Christian list of OT scriptures appeared in Melito, ca. 170, and next in Origen in the third century. After the middle fourth century and following the Nicea Council, multiple canon lists of OT and NT scriptures emerged though still fluid around the edges. There was considerable agreement then on most OT and NT books despite disagreements over some deuterocanonical and NT texts. The surviving lists of OT books reflect both considerable agreement but also some differences on what comprised the deuterocanonical books. The fourth-​and fifth-​century pandect manuscripts (Codices Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and Alexandrinus) reflect this as well. Second-​and third-​century church fathers regularly cited NT texts, especially those containing the words of Jesus, and often introduced them with “as it is written” or “as the scripture says” (see examples in Souter 1954: 147–​172). The majority of citations of NT scriptures are largely of the Gospels (Irenaeus and Tatian, cf. also P45), but later other NT texts (Tertullian and Hippolytus) (McDonald 2017b:35–​55). Biblical canons of divinely inspired scriptures varied in early Christianity beginning with a broad collection of the OT

The Emergence of Biblical Canons in Orthodox Christianity    161 scriptures that was seldom consistently defined for centuries. Full agreement on the scope of the Church’s scriptures was never possible before a largely stable sacred tradition about Jesus (Nicea), but even after that differences continued in churches. Canon lists, citations, manuscripts, and scripture translations reflect uncertainty over some of the so-​called fringe books in biblical canons (Metzger 1968:38–​51).

Conclusion Local church Orthodox councils did not always agree the scope of their scriptures. Despite considerable overlap in lists of sacred books, there was seldom complete agreement. The Orthodox churches regularly included deuterocanonical books in their liturgies and canon lists, but seldom the same ones, and not on the same scriptural level as the protocanonical books. Esther was sometimes omitted in their collections and the Pococke Epistles and Revelation took considerably longer to be welcomed in Syrian churches, which initially welcomed as scripture Diatessaron and 3 Corinthians. In antiquity, few laypersons or clergy would have had access to all of their scriptures. Most would not have known complete collections of scriptures. Indeed, only limited lectionary selections from OT/​NT were read in the churches. Because of this, there was little church focus on the listing all OT/​NT books until the middle to late fourth century. It is also true that no new texts were included that were not cited by the early eastern church fathers. No widely read books were deleted. The Orthodox biblical canon eventually included Revelation, but not for reading in churches. Differences in canon lists had little to do with later divisions in churches, but rather the christological issues.

References Aland, Kurt, and Barbara Aland (1989). The Text of the New Testament. Translated by E. F. Rhodes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Beyer, Hermann Wolfgang (1965). “kanwn,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by G. Kittel and G. Friedrich. Translated by G. W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 3:596–​602. Brakke, David (2010). “A New Fragment of Athanasius’s Thirty-​Ninth Festal Letter: Heresy, Apocrypha, and the Canon.” HTR 103/​1: 47–​66. Brakke, David (1994). “Canon Formation and Social Conflict in Fourth-​ Century Egypt: Athanasius of Alexandria’s Thirty-​Ninth Festal Letter.” HTR 87: 395–​419. Brock, Sebastian (2006). The Bible in the Syriac Tradition. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press. Büchsel, Friedrich (1964). “paradivdomi,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by G. Kittel and G. Friedrich. Translated by G. W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 2:169–​173. Campenhausen, Hans von (1968). Tradition and Life in the Church: Essays and Lectures in Church History. London: Collins. Campenhausen, H. von (1972). The Formation of the Christian Bible. Translated by J. A. Baker. Philadelphia: Fortress.

162   Lee Martin McDonald Chadwick, Henry (1990). “The Early Christian Community,” in The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity. Edited by J. McManners. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 21–​62. Constantinou Eugenia Scarvelis (2012). “Banned from the Lectionary: Excluding the Apocalypse of John from the Orthodox New Testament Canon,” in The Canon of the Bible and the Apocrypha in the Churches of the East. Edited by Vahan S. Hovhanessian. Bible in the Christian Orthodox Tradition. New York, Oxford: Peter Lang. 2:51–​61. Cowley, R. W. (1974). “The Biblical Canon of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church Today.” Ostkirchliche Studien 23: 318–​324. Ellis, E. Earle (1991). The Old Testament in Early Christianity. WUNT 1/​54. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr. Gallagher, Edmon L., and J. D. Meade (2017). The Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity: Texts and Analysis. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Grant, R. M. (1965). Formation of the New Testament. New York: Harper & Row. Hengel, Martin (2002). The Septuagint as Christian Scripture: Its Prehistory and the Problem of Its Canon. Translated by Robert Hanhart. Grand Rapids: Baker. Hovhanessian, Vahan S. (2000). Third Corinthians: Reclaiming Paul for Christian Orthodoxy. SBL 18. New York: Peter Lang, 2000. Hovhanessian, Vahan S., ed. (2012). The Canon of the Bible in the Apocrypha in the Churches of the East. Bible in the Christian Orthodox Tradition. New York, Oxford: Peter Lang. Kealy, S. F. (1979). “The Canon: An African Contribution.” Biblical Theology Bulletin 9: 13–​26. Liere, Frans van (2014). An Introduction to the Medieval Bible. New York: Cambridge University Press. Light, Laura (2011). “The Bible and the Individual: The Thirteenth Century,” in The Practice of the Bible in the Middle Ages: Production, Reception, and Performance in Western Christianity. Edited by Susan Boynton and Diane J. Reilly. New York: Columbia University Press. 228–​246. Lim, Timothy H. (2013). The Formation of the Jewish Canon. AYBRL. New Haven, London: Yale University Press. McDonald, Lee Martin (2004). “The Gospels in Early Christianity,” in Reading the Gospels Today. Edited by S. E. Porter. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 150–​178. McDonald, Lee Martin (2013). “Hellenism and the Biblical Canons: Is There a Connection?,” in Christian Origins and Hellenistic Judaism: Social and Literary Contexts for the New Testament. Edited by S. E. Porter and A. W. Pitts. Early Christianity in Its Hellenistic Context 2. Leiden: Brill. 13–​49. McDonald, Lee Martin (2017a). The Formation of the Biblical Canon. Volume One: The Old Testament, Its Authority and Canonicity. Bloomsbury: T & T Clark. McDonald, Lee Martin (2017b). The Formation of the Biblical Canon. Volume Two: The New Testament, Its Authority and Canonicity. Bloomsbury: T & T Clark. McDonald, Lee Martin, and James A. Sanders, eds. (2002). The Canon Debate. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Metzger, Bruce M. (1968). “The Formulas Introducing Quotations of Scripture in the New Testament and in the Mishnah,” in Historical and Literary Studies: Pagan, Jewish, and Christian. Edited by B. M. Metzger. New Testament Tools and Studies 8. Leiden: Brill. 52–​63. Metzger, Bruce M. (1987). The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance. Oxford: Clarendon. Metzger, B. M., and B. D. Ehrman (2005). The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. New York-​Oxford: Oxford University Press.

The Emergence of Biblical Canons in Orthodox Christianity    163 Miller, James (2010). “The Prophetologion: The Old Testament of Byzantine Christianity?” in The Old Testament in Byzantium. Edited by Paul Magdalino and Robert S. Nelson. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection. 55–​76. Oikonomos, Elias (1991). “The Significance of the Deuterocanonical Writings in the Orthodox Church,” in The Apocrypha in Ecumenical Perspective. Edited by S. Meuer. UBS Monograph Series 6. New York, Reading, UK: United Bible Societies. 16–​32. Penner, Kenneth M. (2010). “Citation Formulae as Indices to Canonicity in Early Jewish and Early Christian Literature,” in Jewish and Christian Scriptures: The Function of “Canonical” and “Non-​Canonical” Religious Texts. Edited by James H. Charlesworth and Lee Martin McDonald. Jewish and Christian Texts in Contexts and Related Studies 7. London, New York: T & T Clark. 62–​84. Pentiuc, Eugen J. (2014a). The Old Testament in Eastern Orthodox Tradition. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pentiuc, Eugen J. (2014b). “Old Testament,” in The Concise Encyclopedia of Orthodox Christianity. Edited by J. A. McGuckin. Malden, MA, Oxford: Wiley, Blackwell. 341–​343. Rompay, Lucas Van (2020). “The Canonical History of the Deutero-​Canonical Texts 1.1.3 The Syriac Canon,” in The Textual History of the Bible, vol. 2 A:136-65. Edited by Armin Lange and Matthias Henze. Leiden: Brill. Rothschild, Clare (2018). “The Muratorian Fragment as Roman Fake.” Novum Testamentum 60: 55–​82. Scanlin, Harold P. (1996). “The Old Testament Canon in the Orthodox Churches,” in New Perspectives on Historical Theology: Essays in Memory of John Meyendorf. Edited by Bradkey Nassif. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 300–​312. Schmidt, Daryl D. (2002). “The Greek New Testament as a Codex,” in The Canon Debate. Edited by L. M. McDonald and J. A. Sanders. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. 469–​484. Schneemelcher, W., ed. (1992). New Testament Apocrypha. Vol. 2. Translated by R. M. Wilson. 2nd edition. Louisville: Westminster John Knox. Stevenson, J. A. (1957). A New Eusebius: Documents Illustrative of the History of the Church to A.D. 337. London: SPCK. Souter, Alexander (1954). The Text and Canon of the New Testament. Revised by C.S.C. Williams. Studies in Theology. London: Duckworth. VanderKam, James C. (1996). “1 Enoch, Enochic Motifs, and Enoch in Early Christian Literature,” in The Jewish Apocalyptic Heritage in Early Christianity. Edited by James C. VanderKam and William Adler. Assen, Minneapolis: Van Gorcum, Fortress. 33–​101. Vassiliadis, Petros (2004). “Canon and Authority of Scripture: An Orthodox Hermeneutical Perspective,” in Das Alte Testament als christlichen Bibel in orthodoxer und westlicher Sicht. Edited by I. Z. Dimitrov, J. D. G. Dunn, Ulrich Luz, and Karl-​Wilhelm Niebuhr. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 259–​276. Weitzman, M. P. (1999). The Syriac Version of the Old Testament: An Introduction. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press. Williams, Peter J. (2013). “The Syriac Versions of the Bible,” in The New Cambridge History of the Bible, Vol. 1: From the Beginnings to 600. Edited by J. C Paget and J. Schaper. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press. 527–​535.

Chapter 10

“ Splendid Bri l l ia nc y” Orthodox Perspectives on Biblical Inspiration Edith M. Humphrey Contemporary Western Christians are accustomed to considering inspiration of the Scriptures in terms of contentious debate concerning how these writings have been, by the Holy Spirit, either “breathed out” (one translation of theopneustos, 2 Tim 3:16), or “breathed into” (inspirata, Vulgate). When the subject is broached, many recall the dispute between Trent and the Reformers concerning the extent of the canon and its relationship with Tradition, the skepticism of the Enlightenment (and its aftermath) concerning revelation and epistemology, the mid-​twentieth-​century “battle for the Bible,” the conservative Protestant’s search for inerrant autographs, and ongoing liturgical debates concerning whether the reading of the lesson should be prefaced by “Listen for” or “This is” the Word of the Lord. For Orthodox, the contours are different, for they do not approach inspiration as an object of debate; rather, the inspired Word is viewed as a central means by which the incarnate Word communicates to His Church, for both information and formation.1 In Orthodox writings we find few technical deliberations concerning Scripture’s inspiration, just as Orthodoxy has not dogmatized the sacramental mysteries. Instead, the Bible is received as the beloved treasure of the Church as a whole. This direct and practical response has been sustained, with some detours, through the centuries. As St. Athanasius put it, [T]‌he grace of [God’s] feast is not limited to one time, nor does its splendid brilliancy decline; but it is always near, enlightening the minds of those who earnestly desire it. For therein is constant virtue, for those who are illuminated in their minds, and meditate on the divine Scriptures day and night, like the man to whom a blessing is given, as it is written in the sacred Psalms; “Blessed is the man who has not walked in the counsel of the ungodly, nor stood in the way of sinners, nor sat in the seat of corrupters. But his delight is in the law of the Lord, and in His law does he meditate day and night.” For it is not the sun, or the moon,

1 

Eugene J. Pentiuc, The Old Testament in Eastern Orthodox Tradition (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014), 208.

“Splendid Brilliancy”   165 or the host of those other stars which illumines him, but he glitters with the high effulgence of God over all.2

Here the saint makes several moves in concert with other church fathers—​first, extending to all Scriptures the characteristics attributed to Torah; next, naming as God’s beneficiaries both all “those who are illumined” and the individual “to whom a blessing is given”; and finally, understanding the Scriptures as the means by which God imparts divine radiance to His people. We will take St. Athanasius’s words as emblematic, and examine these typical Orthodox themes: the source and power of Scripture to show forth the Incarnate Word; the relationship of Old to New Testament Scripture as part of Holy Tradition; and the practical and divinizing purposes of the inspired Word. Our approach will be thematic rather than strictly diachronic: Though later theologians have relied on earlier ones, there is no thoroughgoing development to be seen, but an intersection of particular needs with insights of interpreters, past and present.

Source, Power, and Primary Purpose of Scripture We begin with select fathers’ assertions concerning the source and the power of the Scriptures, and how they show forth the Incarnate Word. Those fathers who emphasize this commonly speak of the fullness of the Scriptures. The Syrian sage St. Aphrahat (third to fourth c. AD) “riffs” off John 21:2: “For if the days of a man should be as many as all the days of the world from Adam to the end of the ages and he should sit and meditate upon the Holy Scriptures, he would not comprehend all the force of the depth of the words.”3 Similarly, St. Athanasius speaks of the holy books as “the fountains of salvation,”4 and the eloquent St. John Chrysostom uses several metaphors to capture their depth and plenitude: Reading the Holy Scriptures is like a treasure. . . . [Y]‌ou can get from a small phrase a great wealth of thought and immense riches. The Word of God is [also] . . . like a spring gushing with overflowing waters in a mighty flood. . . . [G]reat is the yield of this treasure and the flow of this spiritual fountain. . . . [O]ur forebears drank from these waters to the limit of their capacity, and those who come after us will try to do likewise, without risk of exhausting them; instead the flood will increase and the streams will be multiplied.5

Their awed response indicates that these fathers understood Scripture as intimately connected with the very wisdom of God. After all, the language of “fountains,” springs, and running water echoes descriptions of God’s wisdom and power in the Old Testament prophetic and sapiential books (Prov 8:4, 10:11; Bar 3:12; 4 Ezra/​2 Esdras 14:47; Sir 21:3), and is also appropriated by Jesus, the incarnate Word, who pictures Himself as the source

2 

Festal Letter 5.1, tr. R. Payne-​Smith, NPNF 2, 4. Demonstrations 22.26, tr. J. Gwynn, NPNF 2, 13.411. 4  Festal Letter 39.6, NPNF 2, 4. 5  Homilies on Genesis 3.1, tr. R. C. Hill, FC 74, 39. 3 

166   Edith M. Humphrey of living water (John 4). Similarly, the books of wisdom and the prophets envision God’s words as “treasures” to seek and to guard (Job 23:12; Ps 18/​9:10, 118/​9:127; Prov 2:1, 2:4, 7:1; 8:10–​11; Is 45:3, Wisdom 7:14; Sir 29:11). These images, associated with God Himself, with His mysterious “Wisdom,” and with Torah, are applied to the entire written Word, which constantly mediates God’s power-​working will, without depletion. As with the figure of Wisdom, Scripture is seen as that which “comes from the LORD and remains with Him forever” (Sir 1:11). In Orthodox theology, the delights of the written Word are discovered by seeing how it directs the reader to the divine Author. As with the love-​language used for the Theotokos, those who honor her and the Scriptures know that these serve most authentically when they are signposts to Christ. Scripture’s inspiration consists in its ability to show forth Christ, and even to “stand-​in” for Him. So, then, Orthodox Christianity is not a “religion of the Book”—​at least not as understood by Judaism and Islam. Scripture’s center is the God-​Man Jesus, and its reading serves to glorify the incarnate Word—​to explain and make Him present. This gives Scripture the quality of a verbal icon, which offers a many-​faceted window by which the Light Himself is seen. In metaphor, late second-​century St. Irenaeus pictured this quality when he instructed his readers on the difference between Orthodox and heretical interpretation. Grappling with the many-​headed Gnostic movement, the saint taught his fellow Christians about the “divine Scriptures,”6 calling the Bible “the ground and pillar of our faith.”7 The heretics, he said, took the components of the Church’s complex divine library, and rearranged its parts, as one might a mosaic: Instead of seeing the divine King, its picture was deformed to resemble, say, a fox.8 Then, he said, the Gnostic eisegetes compounded their error by composing “spurious writings” that further misdirected “the Scripture of truth.”9 Even a cursory perusal of the varied collection found at Nag Hammadi will show common trends among those whom St. Irenaeus was criticizing—​their attribution of creation to a flawed semi-​deity rather than to the Holy Trinity, an emphasis on esoteric salvation for the “wise” rather than a generous God who invites all, a conflation of the material world with the fall, and so on. The Gnostic decentering of Christ by tendentious reading and esoteric addition was both dangerous and seductive for those who listened, and dishonoring to the Lord who, St. Irenaeus proclaims, is “the Truth” and “did not speak lies.”10 It was on the witness of the One who was the Truth that the apostles relied when they wrote the Gospels: “[T]‌he apostles, likewise, being disciples of the truth, are above all falsehood.”11 Christ and the apostles speak in harmony with the entire body of Scripture, which was, the saint asserts, “given to us by God, [so it] shall be found by us [to be] perfectly consistent.”12 Christian interpreters, whether educated or simple, are called on to read the Scriptures according to what St. Irenaeus called the regula fidei (rule of faith) or kanōn aletheias (rule of truth)—​a way of approaching life 6 

Against Heresies, tr. A. Roberts and W. Rambaut, NPNF 1, 2.35.4; 3.19.2. AH 3.1.1. 8  AH 1.9. 9  AH 1.20.1. 10  AH 3.5.1. 11 Ibid. 12  AH 2.28.3. 7 

“Splendid Brilliancy”   167 and the Scriptures themselves, in which Jesus is discerned as the cornerstone. Though the saint does not appeal to Luke 24, it is here that we catch a glimpse of how Jesus teaches the two on the road to Emmaus, and then all the disciples, how the Law, Prophets (and Psalms) are fulfilled in Him (Luke 24:27, 43). In contrast, anyone who misconstrues the picture, or adds to it contradictory writings, will see something other than the King. Scripture’s inspiration consists in its focus on the One who is Truth. The connection between the incarnate Word and the Word that speaks of Him is celebrated also by fourth-​century St. Ambrose, who describes how “the soul presses forward for a glimpse of hidden mysteries, to the very abode of the Word, to the very dwelling place of that highest Good, and his light and brightness.”13 He rhapsodizes about how the faithful one is bathed in the Light as he or she reads: In that bosom and secret dwelling place of the Father the soul hastens to hear His words, and having heard them, it finds them sweeter than all things. Let the prophet who has tasted this sweetness teach you, when he says, “How sweet are your words to my lips, above honeycomb to my mouth.” What else can a soul desire when it has once tasted the sweetness of the Word, when it has once seen its brightness? When Moses remained on the mountain forty days to receive the law, he had no need of food for the body. Elijah, resting [under a broom tree], asked that his life be taken away from him. Even Peter, foreseeing on the mountain the glory of the Lord’s resurrection, did not wish to come down and said, “Lord, it is good for us to be here.” How great is the glory of that divine Essence, how great the graces of the Word at which even angels wish to gaze!14

Fifty years or so later, St. Hilary of Arles, commenting on the reference to Tabor in 2 Peter, said that the light which shone on the three apostles “was the light of Scripture.”15 This easy co-​relation of Jesus’s glory with the inscribed Word may seem puzzling until we remember that on the mountain the apostles were astounded not only by the glory of Christ’s face, but also by the vision of Jesus flanked by representatives of the Law and the Prophets, and by the word of the Father, which bore witness to Him. 2 Peter 1:16–​21 explicitly connects the written and incarnate Word, since the Transfiguration is seen as that event whereby the apostles had “the prophetic word made more clear.” The epistle then proceeds to commend readers to “pay attention to it as to a Light shining” (2 Peter 1:19), until the face of Christ is eschatologically seen by all. Contemporary readers will find it intriguing that Origen (c 185–​254), followed by St. Maximos (c. 580–​662), interprets Jesus’s shining garments allegorically as Holy Scripture.16 St. John Chrysostom generalizes this link between Jesus and Scripture, declaring, “This is why the exhortation of the Scripture is given: that the man of God may be rendered complete by it. Without this he cannot grow to maturity. You have the Scriptures, he says, in place of me. If you would learn anything, you may learn it from them.”17 Again, his contemporary, St. Theodoret of Cyr, speaks of the divine Spirit as streaming like a river, causing trees to flourish,

13 

Letter 79 to Irenaeus, tr. Sr. M. M. Beyenka, FC 26, 442.

14 Ibid. 15 

Introductory Commentary on 2 Peter, Migne, PL Supp 3.109. Paul M. Blowers, “Exegesis of Scripture,” 253–​273 in The Oxford Handbook of Maximos the Confessor, eds. Allen and Neil (New York: Oxford University Press, 2015), 336. 17  Homilies on 2 Timothy 9, tr. Schaff, NPNF 1. 13.510. 16 

168   Edith M. Humphrey just as Christ “called his own teaching water” and David “compared the person devoted to the divine sayings with trees growing on riverbanks, ever green, bearing fruit in season.”18 Even those not aware of the tradition linking the written and the incarnate Word are taught in liturgy that the glory of Christ may be seen in the Gospel, for worshipers stand whenever it is read aloud. The written Word, in echo of the God-​Man, is considered both human and divine.

Canonical Older and Newer Writings Inspired 2 Tim 3:16 famously speaks about “all Scripture” (or, possibly “every part of Scripture”) as “God-​breathed” (theopneustos). The pedant might counter that, for the apostle Paul (or the one claiming his name), “Scripture” referred to the Hebrew Bible. However, that very limitation is not uncomplicated—​which version, which collection? Would the apostle have distinguished the Hebrew from the Old Greek text? Were Esther, Baruch, and Wisdom referred to in “all/​every Scripture” or only those that would be set as sacred by the Jewish community? As for the dictum’s application to New Testament writers, we should note the very early association of venerable Jewish writings with the memoires (oral or written) of the apostles and the epistles. Even 2 Pet 1:17–​21 speaks about the “prophetic hope” being made more certain by the witness of the apostles to God’s spoken word on Tabor; that same letter goes on to classify the letters of Paul with the “other Scriptures,” explaining that both can be misinterpreted by those who do not have “the grace and knowledge” of Jesus (2 Pet 3:15–​18). From the earliest times of the Church, the importance of the Old Testament was established, insofar as it was understood in consonance with the apostolic witness to Christ. Marcion’s procrustean attempts to remove the Old Testament, along with any New Testament references to it, did not prevail. Similarly, the Epistle of Barnabas, however beloved by many in the second century, was not eventually recognized as a New Testament book: perhaps it was Barnabas’s revisionary view of the Old Testament that featured strongly in this omission. In not canonizing it, the Church maintained her continuity with the Old Testament people of God, who continued to be seen as actually receiving God’s legal and cultic instructions in Torah, although these had a temporary value. The historical character of the Scriptures was thereby established as significant, while pointing forward to Christ. From time to time, some patristic interpretations of Old Testament passages may have threatened to devalue their historical significance (for example, in attempts to reclaim disturbing passages by means of a hegemonic allegorization that denied their literal meaning). Normatively, however, the OT and the NT were seen as inspired together, related, as St. John Chrysostom puts it, as “two sisters and two maidens [who] serve one Master.”19 St. Cyril of Alexandria assigns a dominical origin to this link in a luminous paragraph: In this discourse [on the road to Emmaus] the Lord shows that the law was necessary to make ready the way and the ministry of the prophets to prepare people for faith in this

18 

Commentary on the Psalms 1:7–​8, tr R. Hill, FC 48.8. In illud, Exiit edictum PG 50:796.

19 Chrysostom,

“Splendid Brilliancy”   169 marvelous act, so that when the resurrection really took place, those who were troubled at its greatness might remember what was said of old and be induced to believe. He brings forward, therefore, Moses and the prophets, interpreting their hidden meaning and making plain to the worthy what to the unworthy was obscure. In this way he settles in them the ancient and hereditary faith taught them by the sacred books which they possessed. For nothing which comes from God is without its use, but all have their appointed place and service. In their due place servants were sent to make ready for the presence of the Master. They brought in beforehand prophecy as the necessary preparative for faith, so that, like some royal treasure, what had been foretold might in due season be brought forward from the concealment of its former obscurity, unveiled and made plain by the clearness of the interpretation.20

It may seem curious, however, that the Orthodox Church has not spoken definitively regarding the extent of sacred Scripture, at least so far as the Old Testament is concerned. At some point after the fall of Jerusalem, the Jewish community seem to have come to a conclusion regarding the debate over which books “rendered the hands unclean.” (By this they did not mean books which contaminated a person, but rather those books were set apart from others: after reading them, the one handling the holy book would mark a return to the profane by washing his hands.) About the same time Christians came to a conclusion regarding the extent of the New Testament books, and have not debated this for centuries. However, they did not make a similar determination that was universally held with regard to the Old Testament. Athanasius’s Festal Letter 39 is known for listing the twenty-​seven New Testament books that we now recognize (perhaps with a little hesitancy regarding the Apocalypse), along with most of those older books, in basic agreement with the Jewish collection (minus Esther, and adding Baruch and the letter of Jeremiah.) Of these he says with certainty: These are fountains of salvation, so that the one who thirsts might be satisfied with the oracles within them. In these alone is found the school which announces the good news of godliness. Let no one add to these, nor take anything from them. For concerning these books the Lord shamed the Sadducees, and said, “You err, not knowing the Scriptures.” And He advised the Jews, saying, “Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of Me.” (39.6)21

He then goes on to list other books (Wisdom, Sirach, Judith, Esther, Tobit, the Didache, and the Shepherd of Hermas) that were “readable” or “knowable”—​that is, helpful in growth to maturity, but apparently not set apart by his community in the same way as the first two collections (39.7). However, he appears not to be absolutely consistent in such distinctions, since in Against the Arians (II.79) he refers to Sirach as though it were Holy Scripture. We might notice that the saint does not actually use the noun kanōn here, but rather find the participle kanonizomena used in distinction to those that are “readable.” Most English translations of the Letter render this participle as “included in the canon,” but the term can as easily mean “according to the canon.” Instead of declaring these books themselves

20 

Commentary on Luke 24:13, R. Payne Smith (Astoria, NY: Studion Publishing, 1983), II, 727. This is my own translation of the Greek, which is available online at http://​www.early​chur​chte​xts. com/​main/​ath​anas​ius/​festa​l_​le​tter​_​39.shtml. (It seems, from the context, that the saint read the verb Ἐρευνᾶτε, “Search!” as imperative rather than in the indicative mode used by most contemporary translators.) 21 

170   Edith M. Humphrey to be themselves a canon, Athanasius may be implying that these books of the Old and New Testaments have been recognized by the Church as corresponding to the “rule of faith/​ truth,” for they clearly point to Christ, whereas the other “readable” books are important for the teaching of morals.22 It should be pointed out that St. Athanasius’s letter is descriptive, not prescriptive, and does not have the status of a council. Properly speaking, the boundaries of the New Testament and the Old Testament are not dogmatized, but traced in their use. In the case of the New Testament, there are only limited points of query, such as, for example, the pericope of the woman caught in adultery (which seems to have been inserted late into John, but is attested early elsewhere),23 the ending of Mark, or the Johannine “comma” at 1 John 5:7b–​8.24 As for the Old Testament, Orthodox have varying attitudes to the “readable” books, some considering them authoritative since they are read in worship, with others recognizing a more restrictive canon. As Eugene Pentiuc remarks, “the patristic statements tell us nothing about canonicity in stricto sensu of a ‘canon’ as a closed collection.”25 Similarly, John Meyendorff speaks of the “unresolved polarity” between those who accept the extended, and those who cleave to a narrower canon.26 This is not divisive since the Old Testament is not in itself used to establish doctrine, but is seen as expressly inspired so as to point to Christ. Moreover, Orthodox have not had the same controversies regarding communion of the saints and the place of Holy Tradition as have been prominent in the West: the status of these books, which yield “proof-​texts,” has thus not been so crucial. Orthodox doctrine depends on perceiving the Lord and the Holy Trinity as the center of the body of faith, with Scripture witnessing to this living God. This leads us to consider inspiration and illumination, Scripture, and the whole body of Tradition.

Inspired Scripture, Tradition, and the Illumined Church Though some have considered Vladimir Lossky as an “outlier” in other matters, what he says about Scripture and Tradition may be taken as mainstream. He comments that 22  We might point out, however, that a century later, Amphilochius of Iconium, in his poem Iambics for Seleucus, does use the noun kanōn (in the final line) in reference to a list that he composes of accepted holy books that are “God-​breathed” (PG 37). The poem, with a translation, may be seen at http://​www. bible-​res​earc​her.com/​amph​iloc​ius.html. 23  See Zacxorowski, “The Pericope of the Woman Caught in Adultery,” JETS 61/​ 2 (2018): 321–​337, concerning early references to this story, and the complex debate concerning it authority in https://​www. etsj​ets.org/​files/​JETS-​PDFs/​61/​61-​2/​JETS​_​61.2_​321-​337_​Kacz​orow​ski.pdf. 24  Among Orthodox, such debates are complex, since absence from (what we can determine to be) the earliest manuscripts is not necessarily the criterion for denying authority; the status of the Textus Receptus and traditional use is also in play. 25  The Old Testament, 109. Those who are interested in a close analysis of the various attitudes and dicta made in the patristic period and later, including the Council of Trullo (seventh century) and beyond (Synod of Jerusalem, seventeenth century), will find this ably and fairly represented in Pentiuc’s ­chapter 3, “Canon.” 26  Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes (New York: Fordham University Press, 1979), 7.

“Splendid Brilliancy”   171 “Tradition implies an incessant operation of the Holy Spirit,” that it is “the complement of the Bible,” and maintains “the fulfillment of the Old Testament in the New.”27 Tradition and Scripture are organically related, helping readers in “tracing the inner connections between the sacred texts,”28 and their own connection with what has been received. Here, Lossky represents for a contemporary audience what St. Basil tackled in his tome, On the Holy Spirit. In that pastoral piece, St. Basil reminded his readers that much of the Christian teaching, whether kerygma (for the world) or dogmata (for the household of faith), has come through apostolic oral tradition.29 It may be that the examples he gives—​sign of the cross, prayers facing East, the anaphora, blessing of water and oil, triple immersion—​are all in the category of dogmata. His point is clear, however: the Church is governed not only by what she reads in Scriptures, but also by apostolic words passed down to her. Further, she is formed and lives in the mystery of Christ, not simply through the written Word but also by the re-​echoed spoken word. So then, Scripture has come, in Orthodoxy, to be seen as the concrete written core of Holy Tradition, which precedes it, surrounds it, and continues after it. The Holy Spirit is the One from Whom all this has been breathed out, including unspoken mysteries (as St. Maximos reminds us) in which we “hear the silence.”30 When God “speaks” or “breathes” out to us truth, there is that which can be captured by human words, but there is also a mysterious surplus by which He transforms and changes readers. In this sense, the picture of God exhaling the Scriptures is perhaps most helpful, since this depicts God’s initiative. The actual word theopneustos, found in 1 Tim 3:16, is ambiguous, however. Literally, it means “God-​breathed,” and this be interpreted as “breathed out” by God or “breathed upon/​into” by God (as the Latin inspiratus, and the English “inspired,” suggests). Moreover, Scriptures are not a Word from God simpliciter; they are also words of human beings, who have seen and heard God, and pass on this sight and this sound in their written interpretation. As Metropolitan Hilarion reminds us, “this or that book of Holy Scriptures . . . can be thought of as a synergy which, combined with action, works between God and man. . . . The books of Holy Scripture were written by people who found themselves not in a trance-​like state but in a sober state of mind.”31 In some ways, then, the image implied in the word “inspired” captures this human creative written response to seeing and hearing God, which God then indwells and blesses, as it is passed on to others. However, it needs to be remembered that the God’s out-​breathing proceeds the human interpretation and the “inspiration”: God is understood as communicating, using human language and images. He is the initiator, taking up what He has first created, and then commending this to those who see, speak, hear, and read.

27  Vladimir Lossky, In the Image and Likeness of God (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1974), 198. 28  Lossky, 198. 29  St. Basil, On the Holy Spirit, 27. 30  See Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev, Orthodox Christianity, II Doctrine and Teaching of the Orthodox Church (Yonkers, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2012), 20. We might point out that the element of mystery and silence is paradoxically present even in the written Word, as we see in some of its vision-​ reports, e.g., Rev. 8:6, 9:21, 11:15). On the latter, see Edith M. Humphrey, And I Turned to See the Voice: The Rhetoric of Vision in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic Press, 2007). 31  Doctrine and Teaching of the Orthodox Church, 21.

172   Edith M. Humphrey The inspiration of Scripture, then, implies the illumination of those who read it from within the context of the Church. The second epistle of Peter binds together the hearing and seeing of the three apostles on the mountain with a clarified understanding of what the prophets had said: neither prophets nor apostles spoke as individuals, but as joint-​hearers of God. It then goes on to speak about the Scriptures, interpreted by the apostles, as a “lamp” for those who read them (2 Pet 1:16–​21). The prophets and apostles were “borne along” (pheromenoi) by the Holy Spirit, who also illumines those who see and read in concert with the apostles, as a foretaste of the time when Christ will be seen by all. Insight, writing, speaking, hearing, and reading are superintended by that same Spirit in a continuing action by which God’s people know ever more deeply the One who is the Word, and by which they are bound together. In stark contrast to this communal audition and vision stands the instruction given in some assemblies today: “Listen for the Word of the Lord!” implies that discernment weighs heavily on the individual listener, who must sort out what is valuable from the dross, as Psyche sorted seeds in the Greek myth. But the picture in Orthodox understanding is otherwise: inspiration and illumination are twins, prompted by the same Spirit, received by all the faithful. John Chrysostom, using Psalm 19/​18 as his catalyst, reminds readers of the sweetness of Scripture, when those who taste it have educated palettes: [The words of God] are “desirable above gold and a very precious stone, and sweeter than honey and the honeycomb,” but they are so only to those in sound health. Therefore he [i.e., the Psalmist] added, “For your servant keeps them.” And elsewhere again, after saying that they are sweet, he added, “to my palate.” “How sweet to my palate,” he says, “are your promises.” And he goes on to insist on their excellence by the words “sweeter than honey and the honeycomb to my mouth,”57 because he was in very sound health. Well, then, let us not on our part approach these words in ill health, but let us receive nourishment from them, after having restored our souls to health.32

Later in Orthodox history, in one of his complex responses to Thalassios, St. Maximos writes of the synergy of the Holy Spirit, the human transmitters, and the recipients of God’s revelation: [I]‌t is clear that all the saints both received revelations from the Spirit and searched out their principles in order to unveil what had been revealed to them, and that the grace of the Holy Spirit in no way abolishes the power of nature. To the contrary: grace makes nature—​which had been weakened by habits contrary to nature—​strong enough once again to function in ways according to nature, and it leads it upward to comprehension of divine realities.33

Here he describes the process of illumination as a healing of nature, so that the biblical authors can both receive and understand His word. The fall has so weakened human nature that, if left in that fallen condition, it could neither see nor understand God’s will. By God’s gift, the veil is removed, and the human mind is led upward. Intriguingly, St. 32 

Homily 1 on Gospel of John, tr. T. A. Goggin, FC 33, 8–​9. (My emphasis on the plural first person pronouns.) 33  Question 59.6, tr. M. Constas, On Difficulties in Sacred Scripture: The Responses to Thalassios, FC 136, 415.

“Splendid Brilliancy”   173 Maximos connects the linked process of inspiration-​and-​illumination with the mystery of the Incarnation, in which the divine nature does not obliterate human flesh and soul, but assumes and raises these up: And in the same way that the incarnate Word did not effect the natural things of the flesh without flesh animated by a rational soul and intellect, neither does the Holy Spirit effect knowledge of divine mysteries in the saints without their natural power to search and inquire after such knowledge.34

That is, the Holy Spirit works in the human being who is seeking to understand God in the same way as the Incarnate Word took on human flesh—​not by destroying, but by union with human nature, so as to perfect it. St. Maximos is thorough in his description of anthropological integrity, referring to body, soul, and mind as remaining intact in those who are seeking God. Illumination is not shamanic “channeling,” but the generous communication of God with His rational creatures. As Fr. Georges Florovsky puts it, “In Scripture we see God coming to reveal himself to man, and we see man meeting God, and not only listening to his voice, but answering him, too.”35 Though God works in us personally, we notice that both the Golden-​Mouthed and St. Maximos stress the communal context, for the ancient Christian mind sees the Church living as a whole, growing into (to use the words of St. Paul) “the whole man, the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ” (Eph 4:13). Similarly, it understands the Church’s corporate reception and reading of the Scriptures. Reading the Scriptures along with the apostles involves understanding and continuing in their approach to the Word, since they were directly taught this by Christ. Fr. John Breck, in his readable book Scripture in Tradition, culls eight principles followed by Church fathers as they read. We may rephrase these for simplicity as follows:36

1. The “Word of God” refers primarily to the Son, the incarnate Logos. 2. Reading Scripture requires a Trinitarian perspective. 3. Scripture is theanthropic,37 both human and divine. 4. Interpretation of Scripture is to help the Church and for salvation. 5. New Testament writings are the norm for the whole Tradition. 6. The Old Testament and New Testament are related as promise and fulfillment. 7. Scriptural passages should be interpreted by reference to each other. 8. Scripture should be interpreted within a life of prayer in the Church.

34 

Ibid, 416. Georges Florovsky, Bible, Church, Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox View. Volume One in the Collected Works of Georges Florovsky (Belmont, MA: Nordland, 1972), 21. 36  John Breck, Scripture in Tradition (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s, 2001), 45–​46. 37  Fr. Breck uses the term “theandric,” in echo of the description of Christ as the “God-​Man,” just as Ephesians 4:14 speaks of the Church as growing up to “the perfect man” (anēr). I have modified this to “theanthropic,” since we find, albeit in the shadows, prophecies by women as well, and because today’s sensibilities will assume that females are excluded in the use of the masculine noun. Even for those who are rightly concerned to maintain normative masculine imagery for God, this adjustment need not be troublesome, since Scripture is not only the word of God but also human words, and includes not only divine initiative but also human response. 35  Fr.

174   Edith M. Humphrey Most of these principles would be accepted without debate by all Christians, although items seven and eight may raise some contemporary eyebrows. Principle seven was also in place when the rabbis spoke of the exegetical reciprocity of Scripture interpreting Scripture, regardless of chronological order—​an assumption carried on by the Church fathers, and adapted to a situation where there were two testaments. Contemporary exegetes worry about anachronism here, but have been recently challenged by the brilliant work of Richard Hays, who argues cogently that those seeking to understand the New Testament should follow its own cue, and read the gospels “backwards,”38 even while seeing the preparatory role that the Old Testament held. It is in the light of this mutual reciprocity that the ancient theologians expanded the Pauline reflection of type and antitype, to discern different senses of Scripture—​literal, tropological (moral), allegorical, and anagogical. In the view of this writer, the best of the ancient exegetes did not obliterate the first level by means of the three “higher ones,” but saw them as mutually informative. The Bible was thus understood as a corpus of writings connected historically and materially with the human realm, and also redolent of the cosmic. As for the last principle (the interpretation of the Scriptures within the Church), some today might consider it to be unhelpfully restrictive, tending toward sheer pietism, and threatening to public discourse. However, it is important to remember also that Orthodox speak in one of their most beloved prayers of the Holy Spirit who is “everywhere present” and who “fills all things.” Public discourse, though not graced by prayer for everyone who participates, when “naturalized” by those who do pray, has the potential to lead to truth. For those who analyze together, there remains a concrete focus of study—​the scriptural passage(s) under analysis by which God continues to speak. In such fora, when those on the margins or outside of the Church participate, Orthodox academics maintain the tradition modeled by the prophets (who spoke of “reasoning together,” cf. Is 1:18), Jesus (who addressed the Sadducees on the basis of Scriptures they accepted), and Justin Martyr (who dialogued with Trypho). That model of inspiration and illumination does not bypass the mind in one-​way proclamation, but allows for public discussion and dispute. This potential openness, of course, stands in tension with the mysteries hidden in Scripture, and its interpretive veil for those who are not yet illumined.

The Nature of Inspiration and Its Practical Purpose Orthodox exegetes, from the earliest times, have recognized that Scripture is complex and composite. Embedded within the New Testament itself is that seemingly throw-​away remark in 2 Peter, where we hear about those who misinterpret Scripture: “There are some things in [the letters of Paul] that are hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures” (2 Pet 3:16). Implicit in this statement is the conviction that fruitful interpretation depends on being taught, and having a proper (apostolic) foundation, such as the same author commends in his 38  Richard Hays, Reading Backwards: Figural Christology and the Fourfold Gospel Witness (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2016).

“Splendid Brilliancy”   175 first chapter (2 Pet 1:16–​20). Acknowledgment of obvious “difficulty” in some scriptural passages, and a necessary foundation for understanding these have already been seen in Irenaeus metaphor of the mosaic, composed of various parts and intended to be construed in a particular order. Orthodox conceptions of inspiration recognize both the complexity and integrity of Scripture. As for difficulties in Scripture, Origen is famous for seeing such aporiae or skandala as deliberately placed there by God—​exegetical “speed bumps” to signal that Scripture’s meaning is not always on the surface.39 This feature remains part of Origen’s overall understanding of Scripture as an “accommodation” to humankind, whereby the Word reveals Himself (and not only His words), in analogy to His manifestation in the Incarnate Word. As Paul Blowers remarks, “The Logos in some sense inscribed or ‘incarnated’ himself . . . in a bid to maximalize the spiritual nourishment and healing communicated through the sacred texts. . . . [H]‌is self-​revelation vindicates and redeems the materiality and corporeality in which salvation history plays out.”40 Because human words cannot express everything of the divinity of the Word, the implanting of clues to divine mystery must be part of God’s revelation, leading those who read the Scriptures to search for more than what is immediately apparent. This quest for a fuller meaning in Scripture is schematized by those fathers such as St. Cassian, who spoke routinely of the four senses of Scripture, or by St. Maximos, who so appreciated the diversity of Scripture that he laid out a complex contemplative hermeneutic disclosing its variety and unity.41 Such approaches explicitly recognize the theanthropic nature of the corpus, which we have already registered. Even those portions of Scripture that were evidently recorded by the human author with a view to historical event or the teaching of morals may yield more than these two purposes, as St. Gregory of Nyssa puts it, dealing particularly with the Old Testament: The Scripture is “given by inspiration of God,” as the apostle says. The Scripture is of the Holy Spirit, and its intention is the profit of men. For “every Scripture,” he says, “is given by inspiration of God and is profitable.” The profit is varied and multiform, as the apostle says—​“for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” Such a gift as this, however, is not within any man’s reach to lay hold of. Rather, the divine intention lies hidden under the body of the Scripture, as it were under a veil, some legislative enactment or some historical narrative being cast over the truths that are contemplated by the mind.42

So, then, accompanied by God’s illumination, Scripture has various uses, including imparting a deeper knowledge of doctrine and morals, and “instruction in righteousness”: for Nyssa, and other ancient exegetes, “righteousness” goes beyond instruction in moral living (cf. 2 Cor 5:21). Probably the patristic commentator who most seamlessly integrates pragmatic and deep readings of specific passages is St. John Chrysostom, who in his sermons models a style of reading at once practical and illumined, building a bridge to his congregation. He regularly provides the means by which his hearers can appreciate the historical context of each passage, while also holding out the hope of spiritual vision 39 

For example, e.g., On First Principles 4.9. Blowers, “Exegesis of Scripture,” 253–​254. 41  Ibid, 257–​262. 42  St. Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius 3.7.1 NPNF 2, 5.19. 40 

176   Edith M. Humphrey (theōria) and transformation into the divine image (theōsis) catalyzed by contemplation of the text. Occasionally the fathers speculate on the actual process of inspiration that led to the written deposit we call the Bible. The roughly contemporaneous commentators Venerable Bede (seventh to eight c.) and Oecumenius (sixth to seventh c.) envision rather different experiences on the part of the biblical authors, the one emphasizing their understanding of God’s message, and the other emphasizing the relative obscurity of the revelation even to its prophetic recipients. In his exegesis of 2 Pet 1:16–​21, the Venerable Bede remarks: The prophets heard God speaking to them in the secret recesses of their own hearts. . . . Some interpret Peter’s words to mean that the Spirit inspired the prophets in much the same way as the flutist blows into his flute, so that the latter were no more than mechanical instruments in God’s hands, saying what the Spirit told them to say without necessarily understanding or believing it themselves. This is ridiculous. For how could the prophets have given such good counsel to people if they did not know what they were saying? Are prophets not also called seers? How could a prophet possibly have communicated what he saw in secret heavenly visions to a wider audience if he did not fully grasp what it was that he had seen?43

In contrast, Oecumenius comments, “The prophets knew that they were inspired by the Holy Spirit, even if they did not always understand the full significance of what they were told. But they were eager to see the outcome of what they did understand, as the Lord himself pointed out.”44 At first glance, it looks as though the two are in conflict, Bede insisting that they “fully grasped,” while Oecumenius suggesting that “the full significance” may have eluded them. However, we are helped by our attention to the context of each writer, as Leontius of Byzantium recommends in his critique of Nestorius and Eutychius, who misread the fathers, he said, by not seeking their consensus, nor understanding precisely why they were writing.45 Bede’s concern is to counter an oracular, mechanical understanding of Scripture that obliterates the understanding of those who were inspired. He also uses the prophets’ experience to commend readers of his own time to search for the truth of the divine words, and to seek illumination, just as the prophets and apostles did, on receiving God’s words. Evidently Oecumenius is more concerned to marvel at the majesty of the written Word, and to see how the full meaning of the Old Testament was intended expressly for those who would be illumined by Christ. Thus he reads 2 Peter 1 in the light of 1 Pet 1:12: “It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in the things that have now been announced to you through those who preached the good news to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, things into which angels long to look.”

43 

On 2 Peter, PL 93.73. Commentary on 2 Peter, PG 119.592. 45  Christos Ath. Arabatzis, Patristic Hermeneutics: Fourth to Fourteenth Century, tr. and ed. Dragas (Columbia, MO: NewRome Press, 2013), 28–​29. This cogently argued book, replete with extensive and helpful patristic quotations in the original language, shows how both fathers and those considered heretical held to the central role of Scripture, but how those outside the mainstream of the Church were selective rather than unitive in their reading of the fathers, in order to uphold their tendentious perspectives. 44 

“Splendid Brilliancy”   177 Taking these two voices together, and hearing them alongside the actual practice of exegesis and interpretation among a host of ancient interpreters, Orthodox inherit a view of inspiration that is neither mechanical nor human-​centered. The nature of Scriptures as theanthropic means that they are to be read with as much contextualization and effort as other historical books, but with the confidence that what they offer goes beyond historical and moral instruction.

Conclusion: Inspired Scripture and the Ongoing Illumination of God’s People We have seen a consistent conviction that the Bible resides in the Church as the vital core of Holy Tradition, speaking with the same power it had when written. This immediacy is maintained because the Scriptures are read through and in the company of the faithful, with the consensus of past fathers. Orthodox see themselves, when reading Scripture, as in their daily living, surrounded by a host of witnesses. Fr. Andrew Louth describes how readers of Scripture need not be stymied by the “Kantian divide” concerning knowledge, when the Bible retains its honored place as a family book. Though there are cultural matters that may puzzle some as they read, and though a knowledge of the Scriptures (and its interpretation by the fathers) is made more precise by attention to social and historical context, the sacred Books remain vibrant. It is not a “matter of listening to what once was written . . . across a historical gulf ” for the Orthodox community. Instead, this historical space is “filled with the tradition that brings this piece of writing” to us, helping readers to discern their own “preconceptions and prejudices” so that they can purge these, where they obscure the text, and so that they can “pick up the resonances of the images and arguments” in the passages that are being read.46 St. John of Damascus evokes the metaphor of an irrigated garden when he speaks of “the soul watered by sacred Scripture.” He describes the receptive reader in this way: “[This one] grows fat and bears fruit in due season, which is the Orthodox faith, and so is it adorned with its evergreen leaves, with actions pleasing to God, I mean. And thus we are disposed to virtuous action and untroubled contemplation by the sacred Scriptures.”47 Even this conceit, which is directed toward the personal contemplative reading of Scripture, ends with a reference to the first person plural, the “we” who are disposed to godly action and the vision of God. In the end, for the Orthodox, inspiration and illumination mean that Scripture itself becomes the “collective song of the community.”48 A clear view of the distinct, though pluriform nature of Orthodox approaches to Scripture puts Orthodox readers of the Bible in a position to engage the oppressive hermeneutics of suspicion conceived during the Enlightenment, that, according to Eugene Pentiuc, still “overshadows the current

46  Fr. Andrew Louth, Discerning the Mystery: An Essay on the Nature of Theology (Oxford: Clarendon, 1983), 106–​107. 47  Orthodox Faith 4.17; FC 37, 374. 48  Fr. John A. McGuckin, “Recent Biblical Hermeneutics in Patristic Perspective,” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 47 (2002): 308.

178   Edith M. Humphrey conversation in biblical studies.”49 Jesus assured his hearers that the Father does not give a stone, but bread, to those who ask: this hope concerning the gift of the Holy Spirit surely informs Orthodox readers as they affirm the liveliness and the life-​giving quality of maturely interpreted Scripture.

References Alfeyev, Metropolitan Hilarion. Orthodox Christianity, II Doctrine and Teaching of the Orthodox Church. Yonkers, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2012. Arabatzis, Christos Ath. Patristic Hermeneutics: Fourth to Fourteenth Century. Tr. and ed. Protopresbtery George Dion. Dragas. Patristic Monograph Series I. Columbia, MO; NewRome Press, 2013. Blowers, Paul M. “Exegesis of Scripture.” Pages 253–​273 in The Oxford Handbook of Maximos the Confessor. Eds. Allen and Neil. New York: Oxford University Press, 2015. Breck, Fr. John. Scripture in Tradition. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Press, 2001. Breck, Fr. John. Longing for God: Orthodox Reflections on Bible, Ethics, and Liturgy. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Press, 2006. Florovsky, Fr. Georges. Bible, Church, Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox View. Volume One in the Collected Works of Georges Florovsky. Belmont, MA: Nordland, 1972. Hays, Richard. Reading Backwards: Figural Christology and the Fourfold Gospel Witness. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2016. Humphrey, Edith M. And I Turned to See the Voice: The Rhetoric of Vision in the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic Press, 2007. Legaspi, Michael C. The Death of Scripture and the Rise of Biblical Studies. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010. Lossky, Vladimir. In the Image and Likeness of God. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1974. Louth, Fr. Andrew. Discerning the Mystery: An Essay on the Nature of Theology. Oxford: Clarendon, 1983. McGuckin, Fr. John Anthony. “Recent Biblical Hermeneutics in Patristic Perspective: The Tradition of Orthodoxy.” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 47 (2002): 295–​326. Meyendorff, Fr. John. Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes. New York: Fordham University Press, 1979. Pentiuc, Eugen J. The Old Testament in Eastern Orthodox Tradition. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014. Zaczorowski, Scott J. “The Pericope of the Woman Caught in Adultery: An Inspired Text Inserted into an Inspired Text.” JETS 61/​2 (2018): 321–​337.

49 Pentiuc,

The Old Testament, 330.

Chapter 11

The Special Stat u s of the Anagign o skome na in E astern an d Ori e nta l Ort hod oxy Ioan Chirilă From the Scrolls of Moses to “Depositum Templi” and the Holy Scripture; or, From the Holy Archives to the Revelation of Christ—​The Living Authority of the Scripture Placing the truths of faith under a homogeneous martyrdom was an old preoccupation of the homogeneous Christianity of the first millennium.1 Nonetheless, there were numerous religious and political challenges,2 which led to definitions and clarifications concerning identity, both in the first and in the second millennium. The second millennium was decidedly a time of statement of identity, especially because of the schisms.3 It seemed 1 

In this respect, we would like to mention the collecting of apostolic writings, the Councils, from Laodicea and up to Trullo, the Letter of Athanasius, etc. These actions conferred the status of Holy Scriptures on the canonical books, establishing the transition from the status of collection to that of Scripture or, according to Father John Behr, the “transition from the Bible to the Scripture” [my translation]. 2  Such challenges occurred, for example, ever since the time of apostolic Christianity, when, in relation to Marcion’s attitude toward the Scriptures, the Church sought to define the biblical canon, clarifying the fact that it consisted of the Old Testament and of the Gospels and the Epistles of the Apostles. Ioan I. Ică Jr., The Canon of Orthodoxy (in Romanian), vol. 1 (Sibiu: Deisis/​Stavropoleos, 2008), 198–​203. 3  The Great Schism (1054) or the Protestant Reformation (1517) gave birth in the West to churches which, after separating from the Eastern Church, promoted an action of clarification of their identity by putting together confessions of faith that would capture, in nuce, their creed. Likewise, the Christian

180   Ioan Chirilă that, at the end of the second millennium and beginning of the third millennium, the state of crisis repeated, this time as “a universal cry of the 20th century, caused by a value crisis, an identity one, a personality crisis etc.” (my translation).4 This situation can only be overcome by our return to the “word of the Scripture,” which is God’s word using the Holy Spirit, which is expressed by hagiographers so that we can understand it. Thus, to objectively understand the status of the Anagignoskomena in the Orthodox editions, we will state from the very beginning that, in Orthodoxy, the Holy Scripture can be viewed as an incarnation of the Word, as “the Word becomes incarnate through each of the written words” (my translation).5 Therefore, the seeking of and the knowledge of the Word, more precisely the knowledge of God, is our calling to identify Him as Truth or “canon of truth,”6 in Father John Behr’s words, it is the invitation to look for “eternal meanings,”7 to regain the “lost scriptural mind,”8 Christ’s mind, for the “Holy Scripture is not the only and supreme authority for the Church of the apostolic age, given that, for the first Christians, there was a different supreme authority, namely our Lord Jesus Christ Himself. The value and authority of the Scripture

Orthodox canonical identity also underwent a period of crystallization, as it was necessary to embark upon a dialogue with the West—​be it Catholic or Protestant—​and to support its point of view. We see how the Romanian Orthodox Church witnessed such a situation in the seventeenth century, when, through the Synod of Iasi (1642), it established its position with respect to the Reformation and, through the contribution of St. Anthim the Iberian (1708–​1716) and of Patriarch Dositheos II of Jerusalem (1669–​1707), it fought back against the Roman Catholic and United propaganda in Wallachia. These decisions and attitudes, in addition to other similar ones, were nothing else but restatements of the Eastern Christian identity with respect to the teachings of faith put forward by the West. See Ică, The Canon of Orthodoxy, 16. 4  Teoctist,

the Patriarch of Romania, “Foreword,” in On the Life of Moses or On Fulfilment through Virtue, Of Our Holy Father Gregory Bishop of Nyssa (in Romanian), transl. by Ion Buga (Bucharest: Sf. Gheorghe Vechi, 1995), 1. 5  To understand this assertion, we have resorted to the theology of Saint Maximus, who identifies a triple incarnation of the Logos: in the reasons of creation, in the words of the Scripture, and in the womb of the Virgin: “God’s word is called a body not only because it became incarnate, but also because God—​ The simple Word, Who, in the beginning, was with God and the Father and held within the clear and revealed models of everyone, consisting of no comparisons or riddles, nor of allegorical histories, when it comes to people, who cannot fathom all this with their mind rid of the regular, becomes incarnate, being clothed and multiplied in the variety of histories, riddles, comparisons and dark words. . . . For the Word becomes incarnate through each of the words written [in the Holy Scripture].” [my translation]. St. Maximus the Confessor, “Gnostic Heads” (in Romanian), in Philokalia, vol. 2, transl. by Dumitru Stăniloae (Sibiu: Tiparul Arhidiecezan, 1947), 188–​189. 6  John Behr, The Formation of Christian Theology. Vol. 1: The Way to Nicaea (New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2001), 48. Father John Behr also extends the idea of canon of the truth itself to the classical liturgical anaphoras, which resume the entire Scripture, to the saints whose lives embody the scriptural word and to the decisions of synods with respect to the life of the Church. 7  Georges Florovsky, Bible, Church, Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox View (in Romanian), transl. by Florin Caragiu, Gabriel Mândrilă (Bucharest: Platytera, 2005), 30. 8  Modern man has more and more the tendency to evaluate God’s Word by his own standards instead of educating his mind to follow Christ’s standard. He considers that the language of the Scripture is archaic and that it no longer meets current needs. However, it is necessary to relearn the meaning of repentance, to notice once again the need to change one’s mind to understand the Scripture and to become aware of the fact that “the faith which was once taught to saints in such an old and archaic manner” represents an indicative pillar for the times in which he lives. Ibid., 38.

The Special Status of the Anagignoskomena    181 reside only in connection with Christ”9 (my translation)—​the living authority of the Church, Its holy archive.10 The written word is only a partial expression of God’s Revelation. Jesus Christ is the Supreme Revelation, the Prophet par excellence,11 and the hermeneutist is the Holy Spirit.12 Therefore, the authority of the Scripture cannot be understood outside the environment in which it was created (the living community of the faithful) and outside the Holy Tradition of the Church, which are living structures of His mystical Body, structures within which anyone can grow and become strong in spirit (acc. Lk 1:80). When we use Saint Ignatius Theophorus’s terminology, we resort to the time of Moses, who received the commandment of establishing the “Law” in the Holy Tabernacle. Likewise, we have in mind the time of the First Temple of what we call “Depositum Templi,” mentioned during the restoration of the end of the seventh century BC. Then we get to the “regime of the Torah”13 from the time of the Second Temple, where we start with Esdras and then reach the time of the Maccabees and the Hasmoneans, the period when the treasury, the holy archives of Judaism, on which the creation of the Septuagint was based, were collected. In the prologue of the Wisdom of Sirach, the tripartite division of the Jewish canon is mentioned. This confession, dating to the second century BC indicates three categories of books that are considered Scriptures: The Law, the Prophets, and other writings of the Fathers (vv. 1–​2; 24–​25). The same work suggests that the section dedicated to the Prophets was already closed (Sir 44–​49), whereas the last category was still open to debate until the end of the first century AD (most likely until the legendary Council of Jamnia)14 or even until the end of the second century.15 This allowed the addition of several formative writings to the canon of the Septuagint, but none of them had the chance of becoming a “Scripture,” given that, in the Jewish community, the collection of holy writings had already been 9 

Vasile Mihoc, “Bible, Tradition and Church (in Romanian),” Pleroma 5, no. 1 (2003): 98. Answering to those who wanted to base their faith in Christ on reliable sources (archives—​writings from the Old or the New Testament), Saint Ignatius the Theophorus said that, for him, the archives are Jesus Christ Himself, “His Cross, his death and Resurrection and the faith given through Him [being, emphasis added] holy archives” [my translation]. St. Ignatius the Theophorus, “The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians (in Romanian),” in The Fathers of the Church, vol. 1, transl. by Dumitru Fecioru (Bucharest: Ed. Institutului Biblic și de Misiune al Bisericii Ortodoxe Române, 1979), 180. 11  Corneliu Sârbu, “Jesus Christ as the Supreme Prophet” (in Romanian), The Metropolitan Church of Banat 30, no. 1–​3 (1974): 19. 12 John Breck, Scripture in Tradition: The Bible and Its Interpretation in the Orthodox Church (New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2001), 19. 13 Liviu Vâlcea, “Pages of Biblical History of the Old Testament: The Hasmonean Dynasty” (in Romanian), Theological Journal 7, no. 2 (1997): 170–​174. 14  We would like to mention here the Council of Jamnia (90–​100 AD), whose role was important in the crystallization of the Jewish canon, since it was during this Council that the rabbis talked about the books they considered to be canonical during their time. See Miltiadis Konstininou, “Old Testament Canon and Text in the Greek-​Speaking Orthodox Church,” in Simon Crisp, Manuel Jinbachian (eds.), Text Theology & Translation, Essays in Honor of Jan de Waard (London: United Bible Societies, 2004), 98; Robert C. Newman, “The Council of Jamnia and the Old Testament Canon,” Westminster Theological Journal 38, no. 4 (1976): 349. 15  This reality is also confirmed by the hagiographers of the New Testament, who always distinguish between the writings of the three canonical categories and the Anagignoskomena books/​additions, calling the former: “scriptures” or “it is written.” Eugen Pentiuc, The Old Testament in the Eastern Orthodox Tradition (in Romanian), transl. by Nectarie Dărăban (Cluj-​Napoca: Renașterea, 2018), 172. 10 

182   Ioan Chirilă closed. For Flavius Josephus, these books, which were not included in the canon containing writings “worthy of belief,” were written much later, after the canon was already established (approx. 5th c. BC), and cannot prove a precise prophetic succession (Against Apion 1.38–​ 42). What is left besides these writings is only the intertestamental literature, which was not translated and therefore was not part of the configuration of the Septuagint. The scriptural editions that are based on the Septuagint would pass on the same structure, with additions from the Anagignoskomena to the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. When the challenge of including additional writings in the scriptural corpus arose, the Church opted for the filter/​canon of the Septuagint. The following fall within this range: the action of Saint Athanasius the Great against the gnostic literature, the decisions of the local councils of Laodicea and Carthage,16 and the Apostolic Constitutions,17 which would be crowned by the decision of the Fourth Ecumenical Council.18 As such, we can say that this is the end of the road of transition from the scrolls/​depositum, from the holy archives to the Holy Scripture and that, in the Holy Scripture, whose translation is based on the Septuagint, we will encounter a group of writings called deuterocanonical (for Roman Catholics), Anagignoskomena (for the Orthodox), and apocryphal (for Protestants). A particular case is the extended canon of the Non-​Chalcedonian Eastern Orthodox Churches, which seems to have followed the path opened by Esdras.19 They surpassed the number of seventy writings, sometimes reaching even eighty-​one, as is the case of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahdo Church.20 The Coptic Churches, on the other hand, kept the Jewish canon, without the Anagignoskomena. This shows us that church authority decides on extension and content, according to the dogmatic, liturgical, and hermeneutic orientation. Therefore, we would like to mention a characteristic of Romanian Orthodoxy, highlighted by Father Dumitru Stăniloae, who considered that “the Church is moving within the Revelation or the Scripture or the Tradition; the Scripture reveals its content within the Church and the Tradition; the Tradition is living within the Church. The Revelation itself

16  Canon 60 of Laodicea (before 380) and canon 26 of Carthage (397), although similar in terms of content, represent the first synodal decisions with respect to the biblical canon. They provide the list of books of the Old and the New Testament, the only ones allowed to be read in the Church. Ică, The Canon of Orthodoxy, 150. See the text of the canon in The Canons of the Orthodox Church: The Canons of Local Synods (in Romanian), vol. 2, transl. by Răzvan Perșa (Bucharest: Basilica, 2018), 99. 17  By equally addressing the clergy and the laymen, the 85th apostolic canon (before 380) underscores the books of the Old and the New Testament which are “esteemed venerable and holy.” Ică, The Canon of Orthodoxy, 150. See the text of the canon in Perșa, The Canons of the Orthodox Church, vol. 1, 133. 18  The second canon of Trullo (Fifth–​Sixth Ecumenical Council) underlines the fact “that the eighty-​ five canons, received and ratified by the holy and blessed Fathers before us, and also handed down to us in the name of the holy and glorious Apostles should from this time forth remain firm and unshaken.” Perșa, The Canons of the Orthodox Church, vol. 1, 267. 19  “Make public [the twenty-​four, emphasis added] books that you wrote first, and let the worthy and the unworthy read them; but keep the seventy that were written last, to give them to the wise among your people. For in them is the spring of understanding, the fountain of wisdom, and the river of knowledge. And I did so.” (4 Esd. 14:45–​48). Ică, The Canon of Orthodoxy, 157. 20  Proving to be “the most comprehensive of the existing Christian canons” [my translation], the extended Ethiopian canon contains forty-​six books in the Old Testament and thirty-​five in the New Testament, as it includes books from the intertestamental and from the postapostolic periods. See details in Ică, The Canon of Orthodoxy, 151–​152; R. W. Cowley, “The Biblical Canon of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church Today,” Ostkirchliche Studien 23, no. 4 (1974): 318–​323.

The Special Status of the Anagignoskomena    183 is efficient within the Church and the Church is living within the Revelation. However, this intertwinement depends on the work of the Holy Spirit of Christ”21 (my translation).

The Anagignoskomena—​A Narrative Complement to the Canonical Books and a Theological Clarification of Providence The Anagignoskomena have not been introduced homogeneously in the Orthodox editions, an important factor in their configuration being the edition of the Septuagint on which the translation was based. This is how we can explain the differences between the Orthodox scriptural editions of the Eastern Churches. Before going into further details concerning these aspects, we would like to mention the meaning of the concept of Anagignoskomena. In the Homeric poems, the verb “a)nagignw/​skw” means “to know better,” “to know again,” “to recognize.” According to Homer, when used about writing to letters, it means “to know again,” “to read.”22 In the passive voice, when the verb accompanies the noun “book/​books” (as in the example “ta\ bibli/​a ta\ a)negnwsme/​na”), it means “the books read aloud,” meaning “the published book.” The verb “a)nagignw/​skw” can also mean “to persuade, to convince.” Likewise, when the preposition “a)na/​” precedes a verb, it can mean “upward, backward, again.” In G. Lampe’s Patristic Lexicon, the term “a)naginwsko/​mena” indicates “the books which can be read in the Church” (for instance, canonical books, as opposed to the apocryphal ones) or “the books which can be read by catechumens.”23 The terminological details suggest that these books are worthy of reading, that they bring additional data to certain writings, and that they are useful to catechumens in their preparation for enlightenment. This also transpires from Athanasius’s Paschal Encyclical, which speaks about kanonizo și anaginoskomena. The relation between the Anagignoskomena and the canonical corpus is evident in the case of additions,24 but, in the case of books, the correspondence is made based on chronology, subject, form, and style.25 With the new scriptural editions, many of them migrated 21  Dumitru Stăniloae, Orthodox Dogmatic Theology (in Romanian), vol. 1 (Bucharest: Ed. Institutului Biblic și de Misiune Ortodoxă, 2010), 70. 22  H. G. Liddell and R. Scott, A Greek-​English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), 100. 23  G. W. H. Lampe (ed.), A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961), 98. 24  The noncanonical additions to the canonical books can be easily noticed, as they are either inserted in the text of a book or placed as separate narratives yet having a clear relation with the content of the canonical book. Thus, in the book of Esther, we see a series of noncanonical passages—​Mordecai’s dream, the decree of King Artaxerxes for the killing of Jews, the prayer of Mordecai and Esther, the appearance of Esther before the King, the decree of King Artaxerxes for the protection of Jews and the interpretation of Mordecai’s dream—​which complete the canonical text, Psalm 151, placed at the end of the 150 canonical psalms, the text on the origin of Job (42:17), and the Song of the Three Holy Children, Susanna, Bel, and the Dragon are in direct relation to the events narrated in the book of Daniel. Ioan Chirilă et al., Introduction into the Old Testament (Bucharest: Basilica, 2018), 736–​737. 25  In the Russian Bible, for example, we notice that the Song of Songs is followed by the Wisdom of Solomon and the Wisdom of Sirach and the Lamentations of Jeremiah is followed by the Epistle of Jeremiah and the book of Baruch. In the Greek Bible, at the end of the Old Testament, we only find

184   Ioan Chirilă within the corpus of canonical writings. One can notice that, in the Book of Baruch, we have detailed elements presenting idols, the state of repentance, and the invocation of the expiatory liturgical service and the confession of faith in the sense of increased hope in salvation and return to the Promised Land, to Jerusalem. The correspondence between the books of wisdom and the proverbs of Solomon in terms of subject, form, and style, is evident; it takes the form of an organic relation between a sophiological doctrinal synthesis (the canonical book) and a practical work, a practical guide in the case of the two Anagignoskomena. This makes me mention John Zizioulas, according to whom orthodoxy is orthe-​doxa and orthopraxia.26 We would make the same evaluation in the case of the relation between Chronicles and Maccabees, seeing it as correspondence in terms of subject, in this case, the subject being the theology of divine Providence: God saves those who are chosen and whose heart is full of His Law. The books of the Maccabees can, however, be related to Esther, and thus we will have the most conclusive practical example regarding the reality and concreteness of divine Providence, which is also viewed as an argument/​a confession of the living, loving, and saving God. Thus, we can understand why St. Athanasius and the church fathers recommended them as worthy of reading, as preparation for catechumens, but, given Virgil Cândea’s perspective on the “Dominant Reason”—​Maccabees, we can conclude that this biblical literary corpus, through its pedagogical and formative value, is “giving birth to man” and therefore useful. Through their content, they support the rule of faith, the canon of truth, as their center is the living God, in the splendor of the revelation of His eternal dynamism, and do not slide into the perpetual attempt of knowing in a speculative, analytically conclusive, and conspicuously empirical way. The canon of truth is Christ, but one can only understand it in the Spirit of God (1 Cor. 12:3), who works so that Christ is formed in us (Gal. 4:19) and our life is hidden with Christ in God (Col. 3:3).

The Century When Eastern Identity and the Canonical Position Regarding the Holy Scripture Were Established According to John Behr, “In the light of the canon of truth itself, other elements are also called canons, such as the classical liturgical anaphoras, which epitomize the whole of Scripture; those saints whose lives and teachings embody the truth are “canons” of faith and piety, and similarly the decisions of the councils concerning the proper order of the

4 Maccabees and all the rest are placed within the corpus of the canonical books. Thus, Nehemiah is followed by Tobit and Judith, Esther is followed by the three books of the Maccabees, the Song of Songs is followed by the Wisdom of Solomon and the Wisdom of Sirach, the book of Jeremiah is followed by Baruch, the Lamentations are followed by the Epistle of Jeremiah, and Daniel is followed by the three additions. 26  John D. Zizioulas, Being as Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church (New York: St. Vladimir’s Press, 1997), 79–​80.

The Special Status of the Anagignoskomena    185 Church and people of God in particular situations are canons.”27 This makes us state the following: The Eastern Church did not feel the need to define its biblical canon until the seventh century, as it was the keeper of the dogmatic and canonical decisions of Ecumenical Councils, which are reflected in its Confessions of faith. The controversies between the Protestants and Catholics (16th and 17th centuries) concerning the status of additions have visibly influenced how the Anagignoskomena were received in Orthodox Churches. Adhering to the background of Western polemics, the Eastern confessions of faith, which were written in that period, vacillated between a “narrow” and an “extended” canon. The first of these confessions, which is attributed to Cyril Lucaris, the Patriarch of Constantinople, was written in 1629. Being influenced by the Protestant view, Patriarch Cyril excluded the additions of the Septuagint from the canon, calling them Apocrypha.28 His choice inevitably triggered a reaction, which was meant to re-​establish the books that are “worthy of reading” next to the canonical writings. The first Orthodox reaction belonged to the Patriarch of Constantinople Parthenius I, who, four years after the death of his predecessor, Cyril, in 1642, gathered a synod to fight against the teachings of his confession, which were not consistent with Eastern tradition.29 Cyril Lucaris’s confession of faith was debated the same year at the Synod of Iasi (Moldavia, now in Romania), where representatives from Russia, Greece, and the Romanian Principalities were present. The confession of the Metropolitan of Kyiv, Peter Mogila, which was written on this occasion, did not tackle the status of additions, but did refer to three books that are “worthy of reading”: Tb. (12:9), Wisd. of Sol. (3:1), and Sir (3:21; 10:7; 15:11–​18, 21; 23:19; 42:18).30 The Synod of Jerusalem (1672), presided by Patriarch Dositheos II Notaras, tackled the situation of the biblical canon and named the addition of the “Holy Scriptures,” considering them to be canonical. We would like to point out that the synod’s decision was contrary to Cyril’s confession, following to a great extent the Catholic vision presented during the Council of Trent (1545–​1563), whose final decision was to accept the additions.31 However, the extensive text in which the Council answers the question “Which books are called Holy Scriptures?” suggests that the Anagignoskomena are still different from the canonical books, even if the fathers of the church placed them together. Father E. Pentiuc mentions that both confessions distance themselves from the terminology of St. Athanasius, who calls them noncanonized and readable.32 We would like to specify that the final documents of the Synod of Jerusalem were signed by the Patriarchate of Constantinople, of Alexandria, and of Antioch, and by the Patriarch of Moscow. The positions of these confessions concerning the status of the Anagignoskomena were not accepted at a Pan-​Orthodox level because of the context in which they appeared. The 27 Behr,

The formation of Christian Theology, 48. Jon Michalcescu, Die Bekenntnisse und die wichtigsten Glaubenzeugnisse der griechisch-​orientalischen Kirche im Originaltext, nebst einleitenden Bemerkungen (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1904), 275–​276. 29  Konstininou, “Old Testament Canon and Text,” 98. 30 Ștefan Munteanu, “Canoniques, non-​ canoniques ou bons a lire? La réception des Livres deutérocanoniques de la Septante dans l’Eglise orthodoxe,” Biblicum Jassyense 39, no. 4 (2013): 49. 31 Miltiadis Konstininou, “Bible translation and National Identity: the Greek Case,” International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church 12, no. 2 (2012): 181. 32 Pentiuc, The Old Testament in Eastern Orthodox Tradition, 164. 28 

186   Ioan Chirilă form in which they were written also contributed to this fact. The Western model, which promoted the exactitude and the need of clearly articulating the status of addition, was quite alien to the Eastern way of relating to this category of writings.33 Even if the status of the Anagignoskomena was not viewed homogeneously in the Orthodox Church, this did not cause polemics or controversies like those of the West. Nonetheless, the confessions of faith mentioned previously represent a reference point for Orthodox countries. In the context of translating the Holy Scripture into national languages in its entirety, the acknowledgment of these synodal decisions carried a lot of weight. At a local level, the representatives of the Orthodox Churches decided whether the additions would be accepted together with the holy books or not. Their decision was essential, for choosing the edition of the Septuagint based on which the translation would be made. If an “extended” canon was chosen, according to the provisions of Patriarch Dositheos’ Confession, the Anagignoskomena were translated and placed next to the other holy writings. Nonetheless, their number and how they were ordered could vary according to the edition which was being used as the main source of the translation/​edition. The lack of certain additions from the translated editions did not necessarily mean their rejection. The decision of the British Biblical Society not to print the group of the Anagignoskomena was based on financial reasons.34

The Acknowledgment of the Anagignoskomena in the Slavic, Greek, and Romanian Spaces In what follows, we will present how the writings that are “worthy of reading” have been viewed in the Slavic, Greek, and Romanian Orthodox environment to have an overview of the acknowledgment of the Anagignoskomena in mostly Orthodox countries in Europe and Asia. As such, we will not insist on the number or the order in which they are mentioned in various editions. Relevant for this research is the attitude toward this category as a whole and not toward each writing individually. However, whenever necessary, we will refer to particular additions. In the Slavic space, the translation of the scriptural writings was due to Cyril and Methodius, the missionaries who were sent by the Byzantine emperor Michael III (842–​867) to Moravia to preach Christianity in Slavic. They first translated the Divine Liturgy, the Gospel, the Apostolic reading, and a few writings from the Old Testament.35 Their original translations from the Scripture have not been kept. They could partially be 33 

Ibid., 164. See details in Dumitru Abrudan, “The Anagignoskomena of the Old Testament Based on Romanian Translations” (in Romanian), Theological Studies 33, no. 9–​10 (1962): 546. 35  In his study, Henry R. Cooper Jr. offers further details with respect to the writings of the Old Testament translated by the two brothers: “The Translation of the Bible into the Slavic Languages: Biblical Citations in the Lives of Cyril and Methodius and the First Slavic Bible Translation,” Slavica Tergestina, no. 5 (1997): 51–​61. 34 

The Special Status of the Anagignoskomena    187 restored from other sources.36 Their translation work was carried on by their disciples, who translated other writings from Greek into Slavic after the Latin missionaries made them seek refuge in Bulgaria and Macedonia, where they were received by Tsar Boris Michael (852–​888).37 The Croatian Glagolitic Bible is one of the Croatian literary monuments that mark the history of the translation of holy texts into Slavic. Although a complete codex of this version is not available, specialists have identified several pieces of evidence that confirm the existence of a Slavic Scripture written with Glagolitic characters before or in the fourteenth century at the latest.38 The texts of this edition have been kept mostly in the worship books and the prayer books used by priests and monks.39 It was found that more than half are translated from a Greek original of the Septuagint and the other from the Latin text of the Vulgate. Thus, we are dealing with a mixed translation. We notice that parts of the Anagignoskomena that were not included in the edition of brothers Cyril and Methodius can be found in this version.40 Specialists have identified in the book’s fragments from Tobit, Judith, 1–​2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach. These texts were translated from a version of the Vulgate.41 The first complete codex of the Slavic Bible was made in 1499 in Novgorod, due to the efforts of Metropolitan Ghenadie. The Metropolitan resorted to existing Slavonic manuscripts and, where there were missing parts or even missing books, he used the Latin text of the Vulgate to fill in those gaps. Therefore, the order and the number of writings that were “worthy of reading” corresponded to the edition of the Vulgate printed by Anton Koberger in 1487 in Nuremberg.42 The Catholic influence43 would also be felt in the first complete edition of the Slavic Bible printed in 1581 in Ostrog. The translators’ intention was that of revising the text of the Bible of Ghenadie based on an edition of the Septuagint published in 1518 in Venice. However, the Ostrog edition is more of a compilation of texts, which were revised based on both the Septuagint and the Vulgate. Concerning the texts which are “worthy of reading,” we would like to mention that 3 Maccabees was included for the first time in the Slavic Bible and that the Prayer of Manasseh was taken from the Horologion of Ivan Fyoderov, who was a renowned Russian editor. A new edition of the Slavic Bible was printed in 1663 in Moscow, with the blessing of the Synod of the Russian 36 

Vesna Badurina Stipčević, “The Croatian Glagolitic Bible: The State of the Research,” Studi Slavistici, no. 13 (2016): 283. 37  Cooper, “The Translation of the Bible into the Slavic Languages,” 53. 38  In this respect, see a document from 1380, tackled by P. Runje, “Hrvatska Biblija u Zadru godine 1380,” Marulić 21, no. 4 (1988): 453–​457. Other sources are mentioned by Badurina Stipčević (“The Croatian Glagolitic Bible,” 284). 39  Six hundred of the 1,320 chapters of the Bible have been restored. However, it is not known for sure whether they all render the original version of the Glagolitic Bible. 40  V. Badurina Stipčević considers that this is due to the liturgical patterns which are specific to the Western Church. V. Badurina Stipčević, “Knjige o Makabejcima u hrvatskoglagoljskoj književnosti: Prva Knjiga o Makabejcima u hrvatskoglagoljskim brevijarima,” Slovo, no. 54–​55 (2006): 5–​126. 41  BadurinaStipčević, “The Croatian Glagolitic Bible,” 289–​290. 42  Munteanu, “Canoniques, non-​canoniques ou bons a lire?,” 51–​52. 43  Alexandru Mihăilă, “The Orthodox Bible and the Anaginoskomena Books of the Old Testament,” Romanian Orthodox Old Testament Studies 4, no. 2 (2020): 34. See also Francis J. Thomson, “The Slavonic Translations of the Old Testament,” in Jože Krašovec (ed.), The Interpretation of the Bible: The International Symposium in Slovenia (Sheffield: Academic Press, 1998), 684–​685.

188   Ioan Chirilă Church. Even if it was intended to be a new translation, based on the text of the Septuagint, this edition was only a revision of the Ostrog edition. Starting with Tsar Alexis (1674) and continuing with Peter the Great and Catherine I, considerable efforts were made for a new translation of the Bible, which would also bear in mind the Greek original of the Septuagint printed in 1597 in Frankfurt. However, the project was accomplished only under the rule of Empress Elisabeth, who printed a synodal Bible in 1751. The text of this edition became normative for the Slavic space,44 turning into the official canonical and liturgical text. The current synodal editions of Bulgaria and Serbia accept the eleven additions of the Bible of Elisabeth, which they consider to be “noncanonical.” What is noteworthy in this edition, which aimed to get closer to Codex Alexandrinus by using the London Polyglot Bible, is the separation of the Epistle of Jeremiah from the Book of Lamentations and the placing of the book 4 Esdras (which initially followed 3 Esdras) at the end of the Old Testament, after 3 Maccabees. In 1876, the Bible was translated into Russian, with the blessing of the Synod. For the canonical texts of the Old Testament, the Masoretic Text was used and, for the Anagignoskomena, an edition of the Septuagint, except for the book 4 Esdras, for which the Vulgate was used.45 This edition did not replace the Bible of Elisabeth in worship, but it was meant for the academic environment and private reading. In this context of translation and printing of Slavic/​Russian editions of the Holy Scripture, it is necessary to mention that Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow expressed a clear position concerning additions in his famous Russian Catechism. He rejected the Anagignoskomena from the list of canonical books because they were not included in the Jewish Bible.46 Most likely, this attitude was based on the Protestant influence, which caused the denial of the canonicity of the Anagignoskomena.47 The recent position of certain Russian biblical scholars is balanced, just as the experience of Eastern tradition recommends. They consider that, even if the additions are not inspired by God, they are worthy of reading and enlightening for catechumens. They cannot be biblical arguments for dogmatic teachings or as the only source of moral teaching. Nonetheless, the Church uses them to consolidate certain teachings, such as offerings for those who fall asleep (2 Macc. 12:43).48 After the war of independence and, implicitly, after the international recognition of Greece as a fully fledged state (1832), the Old Testament was printed in the Orthodox space, with the blessing of the Holy Synod (1843–​1850). This edition, which was published in Athens in four volumes, is a reprint of the Greek Bible, which was printed in 1821 in Moscow.49 The Anagignoskomena are grouped separately from the canonical writings. Before this version, the Protestant missionaries of the British Biblical Society printed an edition of the Old Testament in modern Greek in 1834. The Church was reluctant to the edition, as the text was translated from the Hebrew original. If, in the beginning, even the Ecumenical Patriarch

44 

Ukraine, Belarus, Bulgaria, Serbia, Macedonia, the Czech Republic, and Poland. Munteanu, “Canoniques, non-​canoniques ou bons a lire?,” 53. 46 Pentiuc, The Old Testament in Eastern Orthodox Tradition, 165. 47  Mihăilă, “The Orthodox Bible and the Anaginoskomena,” 34. 48  Aleksei Kashkin, Священное Писание Ветхого Завета (Saratov, Russia: Saratov Metropolitan Publishing House, 2012), 48. Dmitrii Georgievich Dobykin, Введение в Священное Писание Ветхого Завета (St. Petersburg, Russia: St. Petersburg Orthodox Spiritual Academy Press, 2014), 23–​24. 49  The Moscow edition is quite appreciated in the Athonite environment. 45 

The Special Status of the Anagignoskomena    189 Cyril VI had a positive attitude toward them, after the aforementioned year, the Greek Church crippled their mission of spreading the Scripture in the Greek space.50 In 1892, the Greek Church reprinted the Athens edition in a single volume. The synodal editions that appeared in 1928 and 1937 and that used the critical editions of Constantin Tischendorf and Alfred Rahlfs, respectively, are also noteworthy. As far as the writings that are “worthy of reading” are concerned, we would like to mention that the 1928 edition separates them from the protocanonical writings of the Old Testament, calling them deuterocanonical or Anagignoskomena. And the 1937 edition regroups the books based on the order and number of Codex Vaticanus and Codex Alexandrinus. The synodal translation of the Bible into modern Greek, which was published in 1997, was based on a Hebrew edition for the canonical writings and an edition of the Septuagint for the additions.51 The attitude of Greek biblical scholars toward the books that are “worthy of reading” is a balanced one, consistent with that of the aforementioned Russian theologians. The Anagignoskomena cannot be considered the biblical foundation for dogmatic teachings, but they are used by the Church for the spiritual enlightenment of the faithful and of the youth. Therefore, there is a substantial difference between the two categories of writings (the canonical and the noncanonical/​deuterocanonical ones), even if, in the practice of the Church, there has not always been a clear line between them.52 In the Romanian Orthodox space, the first complete translation of the Bible was published in 1688 and is called the Bible of Bucharest or the Bible of Șerban Cantacuzino. The Old Testament was mostly taken from a previous translation made by Nicolae Milescu Spătaru (1660–​1661) based on the edition of the Septuagint that was published in 1597 in Frankfurt. Given the source text, the books were arranged according to the Protestant model. We would like to mention that the fourteen additions53 were placed under the category of “apocryphal books.” The following complete translation appeared in 1795 in Blaj. This was also made from the Greek text. The only book translated from the Vulgate was the Prayer of Manasseh, which concluded the category of the Anagignoskomena. The foreword to this edition tackles the issue of the so-​called Apocrypha. The author considers their place in the Scripture legitimate and deems them noteworthy, as the Church Fathers use their texts without making a clear-​cut distinction between them and the canonical texts.54 The following editions, namely, the Bible printed in Saint Petersburg (1819), the Bible of Buzău

50 

Konstininou, “Old Testament Canon and Text,” 103. Munteanu, “Canoniques, non-​canoniques ou bons a lire?,” 55. 52 Elias Oikonomos, “The Hebrew Language and the Greek Fathers,” Bulletin of Biblical Studies, no 13 (1994): 30. Petros Vassiliadis, “Canon and Authority of Scripture: An Orthodox Hermeneutical Perspective,” in Karl-​Wilhelm Niebuhr, James D. G. Dunn, Ulrich Luz, Ivan Dimitrov (eds.), Das Alte Testament als christliche Bible in orthodoxer und westlicher Sicht (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 270. Demetrios Constantelos, “The Apocryphal/​Deuterocanonical Books: An Orthodox View,” in John Kohlenberger III (ed.), The Parallel Aprocrypha (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), xxvii. 53  Tobit, Judith, Baruch, the Epistle of Jeremiah, the Song of the Three Holy Children, 3 Esdras, Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Susanna, Bel, and the Dragon, and 1, 2, 3, and 4 Maccabees. 54  “In former times, there was doubt in the Church, but now there is none left, even if they are introduced in the Bible using the name apocryphal; for many Holy Fathers bring testimony from these books as from the Holy Scripture” (The Bible of Blaj). See details in Ion Reșceanu, “Canon and Canonicity in the Bibles of Samuil Micu and Andrei Șaguna: Resemblances, Differences and Controversies,” Romanian Orthodox Old Testament Studies 4, no. 2 (2020): 60. 51 

190   Ioan Chirilă (1854–​1856), the Bible of Andrei Șaguna (1856–​1858), the synodal Bible of Bucharest (1914), and the Bibles of 1936,55 1938, 1944, 1975, 1982, 1993, 2006, 2009, 2015, etc., mostly abide by the same pattern of relating to the writings which are “worthy of reading.”56 4 Maccabees was excluded from their list.57 We notice that the scriptural edition of 1968 separates the canonical writings from the Anagignoskomena by using the title “noncanonical books and fragments.”58 Starting with the 1975 edition, the title of noncanonical was no longer used for this separation until the 2019 edition, which resumed the distinction between the canonical and noncanonical writings, this also being mentioned in the foreword of the edition.59 In current Romanian biblical theology, the additions of the Septuagint are considered noncanonical. Nonetheless, they have a privileged status, as the Church considers them important and valuable for the moral and catechetic perspectives they put forward.60 Thus, they are regarded as a legitimate part of the Old Testament due to their pedagogical character and not due to their dogmatic and canonical value.61 The status and importance of these writings were tackled by the Romanian biblical scholars in two stages. The protagonists of the former were professors Dumitru Abrudan,62 Mircea Chialda,63 and Mircea Basarab.64 They analyzed how the Anagignoskomena were received in Eastern tradition and showed the attitude the authors of the main Romanian translations/​editions had toward this category of writings. The last of the aforementioned biblical scholars also made a synthesis of

55 

The Old Testament was translated based on the Hebrew original. details in Ioan Chirilă, “The Septuagint—​As Source of the Romanian Editions of the Bible; Reference Points on the Work of Translating the Bible into Romanian” (in Romanian), Studia Universitatis Babeş-​Bolyai. Theologia Orthodoxa 55, no. 1 (2010): 5–​14. 57  The academician Virgil Cândea speaks about the importance of the book 4 Maccabees (which he calls A Treatise on the Dominant Reason) for the first Romanian editions of the Scripture from a cultural and historical point of view. He shows that Nicolae Milescu Spătaru and, later, the editors of the Bible of Șerban Cantacuzino kept this book—​which was part of neither the canonical books nor the Anagignoskomena—​for cultural and identity-​related reasons. Thus, he correlates the combatant attitude and the strong character of the seven martyred brothers with the idea of resisting the political and ideological oppression of the seventh-​century Romanian principalities: “Control over passions is achieved within the limits of human personality, by means of reason, without any miraculous interventions. The aforementioned episode is not presented as martyrdom, as hagiographic literature would later on do, but as a battle in the old sense of the term, in which strong, fully and beautifully achieved characters manifest themselves [ . . . ]. On the Dominant Reason precisely suggested the resistance against the oppressors and the «observance of the law of the land” [my translation]. Virgil Cândea, On the Dominant Reason (in Romanian) (Cluj-​Napoca: Dacia, 1979), 184. 58  Munteanu, “Canoniques, non-​canoniques ou bons a lire?,” 57. 59  The Bible or the Holy Scripture (in Romanian) (Bucharest: Ed. Insitutului Biblic și de Misiune al Bisericii Ortodoxe Române, 2019), 16. 60  Chirilă et al., Introduction into the Old Testament, 75. 61 Cristinel Iatan, “The Fascination of Taboo: a Few Biblical Episodes from the Books of the Anagignoskomena and of the Apocrypha Acknowledged by the Tradition of the Church,” Romanian Orthodox Old Testament Studies 4, no. 2 (2020): 54. 62  Abrudan, “The Anagignoskomena of the Old Testament,” 541–​ 548; “The Apocrypha of the Old Testament” (in Romanian), The Metropolitan Church of Transylvania 62, no. 9–​10 (1983): 562–​567. 63 Mircea Chialda, “The Anagignoskomena of the Old Testament in the Orthodox Church” (in Romanian), Orthodoxy 13, no. 4 (1962): 489–​539 64 Mircea Basarab, “The Anagignoskomena—​ Worthy of Reading—​ in the Romanian Bibles” (in Romanian), Theological Studies 40, no. 1–​2 (1972): 9–​69. 56  See

The Special Status of the Anagignoskomena    191 the opinions of Romanian theologians concerning the authority of these writings in the Church.65 Their interest in the Anagignoskomena was sparked by the 1961 Rhodes decision to put the issue of the situation of the biblical canon on the agenda of the coming Holy and Great Council. The latter stage of interest in the Anagignoskomena was accomplished by the current professors of biblical theology from the national faculties of theology (Alexandru Isvoranu,66 Constantin Oancea,67 Alexandru Mihăilă, Ion Reșceanu, Cristinel Iatan68), who brought subjects as the reconsidering and re-​evaluating of the books that are worthy of reading back into the limelight. The contribution of Father Eugen Pentiuc, who presented a few current lines of acknowledgment of these writings in the current Eastern Orthodox tradition in a volume published in 2014 by Oxford, is also noteworthy.69 Following the short presentation of how the Anagignoskomena has been acknowledged in the Slavic, Greek, and Romanian environment, we can conclude that the opinions are mostly harmonious. By adhering to Eastern traditions, local Orthodox Churches have adopted a balanced position. The Anagignoskomena are placed close to the canonical writings and are different from the writings that are not part of the canon of the Septuagint. Even if they are sometimes called apocryphal, they are regarded differently compared to the Protestant environment. In some cases, the Orthodox have adopted only the terminology and not the Protestant way of relating to them. Following the Church Fathers who, in certain situations, considered some of the Anagignoskomena canonical, the Orthodox have always valued these writings, by using them in worship structures.

The Acknowledgment of Additions in Orthodox Liturgy This was mostly because the Christian East sees the Scriptures as a living, infinite source that intermediates the encounter between the faithful and the divine Logos. The tension between formative (“extended”) and informative (“narrow”), which has marked over the years the acknowledgment of the canon in the living community of the faithful, be they

65  Mircea Basarab, “The Attitude of Romanian Theologians with Respect to the Anagignoskomena—​ Worthy of Reading—​of the Old Testament” (in Romanian), The Metropolitan Church of Transylvania 58, no. 7–​9 (1979): 602–​618. 66  Alexandru Isvoranu, “The Anagignoskomena of the Old Testament: Interdenominational Attitudes and Reinterpretations” (in Romanian), Annals of the University of Craiova. Theology, no. 1 (1996): 67–​73 67  Constantin Oancea, “Re-​evaluating the Issue of the Anagignoskomena in Orthodox Theology” (in Romanian), in The Importance of Professor Ion Bria’s Works for Current Church and Social Life (Sibiu: Ed. Universităţii “Lucian Blaga,” 2010), 399–​412. 68  The contributions of the last three professors have been mentioned in this study. They were included in the fourth issue of 2020 of the magazine: Romanian Orthodox Old Testament Studies (ROOTS), which was dedicated to the subject of canon and canonicity. ROOTS is the first Romanian journal to promote a Romanian Orthodox exegesis that follows the patristic interpretation of the Holy Scripture of the Old Testament. 69  Eugen J. Pentiuc, The Old Testament in Eastern Orthodox Tradition (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014).

192   Ioan Chirilă Jewish or Christians, is neither constricted nor forced in the Orthodox Church. Eastern tradition did not visibly manifest its wish to define the status of the Anagignoskomena.70 The Church made full use of their formative dimensions, recommending their content through reading them in worship. Thus, Orthodox liturgy is using the books and additions that are “worthy of reading” to offer the faithful the possibility of maintaining alive their relationship with God. For example, the martyrdom of the brothers in the second book of Maccabees (chap. 7) is celebrated in the Orthodox worship on August 1st.71 The songs of Vespers and Matins highlight their unfailing faith and courage when they endured tortures and stood up to king Antiochus. We notice that, in one of the songs, the hymnographer sees them as zealous in Abraham’s faith, sacrificing their soul, their senses, their body, and their youth for their God and eternal life. Due to this fact, the seven brothers, their mother Solomonia, and their teacher Eleazar are asked to intercede for the faithful before Jesus Christ (nota bene!) for Whom they died.72 We have a similar approach on December 17, when prophet Daniel and the three young men (Hanania, Azariah, and Mishael) who confessed their faith in the fiery furnace are celebrated. Also, the hymnographer highlights the prefigurative character of this event. The young men, whose number is exactly that of the Trinity, mysteriously illustrate the “icon of the Trinity” and preach God Who exists in Three Persons. According to the hymnographer, they saw the Word incarnate, Who descended into the furnace, and the Spirit, Who, in the form of dew, put out the flames in the oven. Moreover, these young men are regarded as intercessors of grace, who facilitate the forgiveness of mistakes given by Christ to those who mention them.73 The hymnographer also pays attention to the prophet Daniel, who, through his wisdom, saved Susanna from death punishment and killed the 70 Pentiuc,

The Old Testament in Orthodox Tradition, 137. faithfulness toward the Law, their faith that God would reward them for their sacrifice after resurrecting them, and the acknowledgment of their role as models of faith are the reasons why the Maccabee brothers are put next to the Christian martyrs in the tradition of the Church. Sofian Brașoveanul, Martyrs, Martyrdom and Testimony According to Saint Basil the Great (in Romanian) (Cluj-​ Napoca: Teognost, 2005), 16. 72  “The souls of the righteous are in the hands of the Lord: Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the forefathers before the law were given, the ancestors of the Maccabees whom we now praise. For, as descendants of Abraham, mighty in soul, zealous for the Faith of their forefather Abraham, they struggled lawfully even unto death for piety; for, having been raised in devoutness, in suffering lawfully they reproved the ungodliness of the prideful Antiochus, and in valuing this transitory life as nought for the sake of that which is everlasting, they offered all unto God: their souls, courage, understanding, their­tender bodies, and their rewards for having been raised in purity. O the pious root from whom ye sprang forth, O Maccabees! O thy holy mother, who gave birth to sons equal in number to the days of the week! Yet pray ye for us, together with your mother Solomonia and the wise priest Eleazar, O Maccabees, when ye stand before Christ God, for Whose sake ye labored to receive from Him the fruits of thy labors, and make ye earnest entreaty for mankind; for whatsoever He desireth He doth do, and fulfilleth the desires of you who fear Him” (sticheron from the Aposticha). Monthly Menaion: August (in Romanian), 3rd ed. (Bucharest: Tipografia cărților bisericești, 1929), 7. 73  “In the flame the youths prophetically inscribed the image of the Trinity in immaterial ink with the pen of faith; and they mystically beheld the Word’s extreme descent to the earth and have proclaimed it to all. Wherefore, receiving the dew of the Spirit from heaven, they pour forth gifts upon the faithful who cry out to Thee together: O Christ God, as Thou art compassionate grant remission of transgressions unto those who with love celebrate their holy memory!” Monthly Menaion: December (in Romanian), 6th ed. (Bucharest: Ed. Institutului Biblic și de Misiune al Bisericii Ortodoxe Române, 1984), 230. 71 Their

The Special Status of the Anagignoskomena    193 dragon the Babylonians worshiped as a God.74 Likewise, on November 8, when the Eastern Church celebrates the Archangels Michael and Gabriel together with all angels, one song reminds us of the experiences of Manoah (Judg. 13:11–​21) and Tobit (12:15–​20), to whom angels revealed themselves to reward them for their acts of faith.75 Therefore, the liturgical tradition accepts the content of the Anagignoskomena and fructifies it so that the distinction between the two categories of writings of the Old Testament (canonical and noncanonical) disappears.76 This can also be noticed if we think about the numerous passages from the Wisdom of Solomon or from the Book of Baruch, which are read as paroemias at Vespers77 and about the fact that, in the Canons of Matins, the seventh and eighth songs are based on the Song of the Three Holy Children of Babylon.78 Moreover, during Great Compline, the Prayer of King Manasseh is read, a prayer that captures the peculiarity of Eastern repentance, in which man, aware of his many sins, shows faith in God’s mercy and thus asks for His forgiveness. Thus, considering all these aspects, we understand why Petros Vassiliadis claims that the Church has granted the Anagignoskomena a halo of authority by using them in worship.79

Conclusions The Anagignoskomena appeared as the fruit of collecting the holy writings after the return from Babylon and after the action promoted by the scholar Ezra, but, at the same time, we must also mention as a reason for their being included in the corpus of the Septuagint the desire of the Hellenists to have the entire treasury of the Jewish literature and the Torah. That is why those who chose to base their translation on the Septuagint have a broader configuration of the canon than the compressed form of the Tanakh. These writings have not been acknowledged as canonical, but as books that are worthy of reading and useful to catechumens in preparing their access to the community and the word of the Revelation. There are an organic relationship and a relation of complementarity between the Anagignoskomena and the canonical corpus, the former giving further details and developing certain subjects from the canonical books, which is why, in some scriptural editions, they migrate right next to the canonical writing to which they are connected. However, in the Orthodox environment, they have not been regarded as a biblical foundation for dogmatic decisions; instead, they have enjoyed the attention of the faithful in liturgical life, providing relevant confessions, which justify certain ritual structures, and contributing in a special way to the assertion of the unity of the Scripture, which is born from its object-​subject, namely the Living God, the Trinity, one in essence and undivided.

74 

Monthly Menaion: December, 228–​232. Monthly Menaion: November (in Romanian), 3rd ed. (Bucharest: Tipografia Cărților Bisericești, 1927), 125. 76  In fact, in worship, the entire corpus of the Scripture is viewed as a whole. 77  Neculai Dragomir, “A Historical and Liturgical Study on the Biblical Texts Included in the Worship Books of the Orthodox Church” (in Romanian), Theological Studies 49, no. 3–​4 (1981): 225–​226. 78  Abrudan, “The Anagignoskomena of the Old Testament,” 548. 79  Vassiliadis, “Canon and Authority of Scripture,” 270. 75 

194   Ioan Chirilă The pedagogical, formative dimension of these writings grants them the value of “models for the embodiment and living of faith,” of moral readjustment of one who has fallen into sin through repentance, serving of and returning to God, of achieving gnomic thinking and of aligning one’s own will to that of God; this is why they reached into worship, into the confession of faith and the foundation of the canon of sanctification, visible for each of the models of acknowledgment of faith, of the canon of faith. The Anagignoskomena are worthy of reading!

References Abrudan, Dumitru. “The Anagignoskomena of the Old Testament Based on Romanian Translations” (in Romanian). Theological Studies 33, No. 9–​10 (1962): 541–​548. Abrudan, Dumitru. “The Apocrypha of the Old Testament” (in Romanian). The Metropolitan Church of Transylvania 62, No. 9–​10 (1983): 562–​567. Badurina Stipčević, V. “Knjige o Makabejcima u hrvatskoglagoljskoj književnosti: Prva Knjiga o Makabejcima u hrvatskoglagoljskim brevijarima.” Slovo, No. 54–​55 (2006): 5–​126. Badurina Stipčević, Vesna. “The Croatian Glagolitic Bible: The State of the Research.” Studi Slavistici, No. 13 (2016): 283–​297. Basarab, Mircea. “The Attitude of Romanian Theologians with Respect to the Anagignoskomena— ​Worthy of Reading—​of the Old Testament” (in Romanian). The Metropolitan Church of Transylvania 58, No. 7–​9 (1979): 602–​618. Basarab, Mircea. “The Anagignoskomena—​Worthy of Reading—​in the Romanian Bibles” (in Romanian). Theological Studies 40, No. 1–​2 (1972): 9–​69. Behr, John. The Formation of Christian Theology. Vol. 1: The Way to Nicaea. New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2001. Behr, John. The Bible or the Holy Scripture (in Romanian). Bucharest: Ed. Institutului Biblic și de Misiune al Bisericii Ortodoxe Române, 2019. Brașoveanul, Sofian. Martyrs, Martyrdom and Testimony According to Saint Basil the Great (in Romanian). Cluj-​Napoca: Teognost, 2005. Breck, John. Scripture in Tradition: The Bible and Its Interpretation in the Orthodox Church. New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2001. Breck, John. The Canons of the Orthodox Church. The Canons of Local Synods (in Romanian). Vols. 1–​2, translated by Răzvan Perșa. Bucharest: Basilica, 2018. Cândea, Virgil. On the Dominant Reason (in Romanian). Cluj-​Napoca: Dacia, 1979. Chialda, Mircea. “The Anagignoskomena of the Old Testament in the Orthodox Church” (in Romanian). Orthodoxy 13, No. 4 (1962): 489–​539. Chirilă, Ioan, Dumitru Abrudan, Petre Semen, Constantin Oancea, Remus Onișor, and Mircea Basarab. Introduction into the Old Testament (in Romanian). Bucharest: Basilica, 2018. Chirilă, Ioan. “The Septuagint—​As Source of the Romanian Editions of the Bible; Reference Points on the Work of Translating the Bible into Romanian” (in Romanian). Studia Universitatis Babeş-​Bolyai. Theologia Orthodoxa 55, No. 1 (2010): 5–​14. Constantelos, Demetrios. “The Apocryphal/​Deuterocanonical Books: An Orthodox View.” In The Parallel Aprocrypha, edited by John Kohlenberger III, xxvii–​xxx. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.

The Special Status of the Anagignoskomena    195 Cooper, Henry R., Jr. “The Translation of the Bible into the Slavic Languages: Biblical Citations in the Lives of Cyril and Methodius and the First Slavic Bible Translation.” Slavica Tergestina, No. 5 (1997): 51–​61. Cowley, R. W. “The Biblical Canon of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church Today.” Ostkirchliche Studien 23, No. 4 (1974): 318–​323. Dobykin, Dmitrii Georgievich. Введение в Священное Писание Ветхого Завета. St. Petersburg, 2014. Dragomir, Neculai. “A Historical and Liturgical Study on the Biblical Texts Included in the Worship Books of the Orthodox Church” (in Romanian). Studii Teologice 49, No. 3–​4 (1981): 225–​226. Florovsky, George. Bible, Church, Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox View (in Romanian). Translated by Florin Caragiu and Gabriel Mândrilă. Bucharest: Platytera, 2005. Iatan, Cristinel. “The Fascination of Taboo: A Few Biblical Episodes from the Books of the Anagignoskomena and of the Apocrypha Acknowledged by the Tradition of the Church.” Romanian Orthodox Old Testament Studies 4, No. 2 (2020): 44–​56. Ică, Ioan I., Jr. The Canon of Orthodoxy (in Romanian). Vol. 1. Sibiu: Deisis/​Stavropoleos, 2008. Isvoranu, Alexandru. “The Anagignoskomena of the Old Testament: Interdenominational Attitudes and Reinterpretations” (in Romanian). Annals of the University of Craiova. Theology, No. 1 (1996): 67–​73. Kashkin, Aleksei. Священное Писание Ветхого Завета. Saratov, Russia: Saratov Metropolitan Publishing House, 2012. Konstininou, Miltiadis. “Old Testament Canon and Text in the Greek-​Speaking Orthodox Church.” In Text Theology & Translation: Essays in Honor of Jan de Waard, edited by Simon Crisp, and Manuel Jinbachian, 89–​107. London: United Bible Societies, 2004. Konstininou, Miltiadis. “Bible Translation and National Identity: The Greek Case.” International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church 12, No. 2 (2012): 176–​186. Lampe, G. W. H. (Ed.). A Patristic Greek Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961. Liddell, H. G., and R. Scott, A Greek-​English Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996. Michalcescu, Jon. Die Bekenntnisse und die wichtigsten Glaubenzeugnisse der griechisch-​ orientalischen Kirche im Originaltext, nebst einleitenden Bemerkungen. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1904. Mihăilă, Alexandru. “The Orthodox Bible and the Anaginoskomena Books of the Old Testament.” Romanian Orthodox Old Testament Studies 4, No. 2 (2020): 26–​43. Mihoc, Vasile. “Bible, Tradition and Church” (in Romanian). Pleroma 5, No. 1 (2003): 95–​123. Monthly Menaion. November (in Romanian). 3rd ed. Bucharest: Tipografia Cărților Bisericești, 1927. Monthly Menaion: August (in Romanian). 3rd ed. Bucharest: Tipografia cărților bisericești, 1929. Monthly Menaion: December (in Romanian). 6th ed. Bucharest: Editura Institutului Biblic și de Misiune al Bisericii Ortodoxe Române, 1984. Munteanu, Ștefan. “Canoniques, non-​canoniques ou bons a lire? La réception des Livres deutérocanoniques de la Septante dans l’Eglise orthodoxe.” Biblicum Jassyense 39, No. 4 (2013): 39–​62. Newman, Robert C. “The Council of Jamnia and the Old Testament Canon.” Westminster Theological Journal 38, No. 4 (1976). 319–​349. Oancea, Constantin. “Re-​evaluating the Issue of the Anagignoskomena in Orthodox Theology” (in Romanian). In The Importance of Professor Ion Bria’s Works for Current Church and Social Life, edited by Nicolae Moșoiu, 399–​412. Sibiu: Universităţii “Lucian Blaga,” 2010.

196   Ioan Chirilă Oikonomos, Elias. “The Hebrew Language and the Greek Fathers.” Bulletin of Biblical Studies, No. 13 (1994): 29–​47. Pentiuc, Eugen J. The Old Testament in Eastern Orthodox tradition. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014. Pentiuc, Eugen. The Old Testament in the Eastern Orthodox Tradition (in Romanian). Translated by Nectarie Dărăban. Cluj-​Napoca: Renașterea, 2018. Reșceanu, Ion. “Canon and Canonicity in the Bibles of Samuil Micu and Andrei Șaguna: Resemblances, Differences and Controversies.” Romanian Orthodox Old Testament Studies 4, No. 2 (2020): 57–​66. Runje, P. “Hrvatska Biblija u Zadru godine 1380.” Marulić 21, No. 4 (1988): 453–​457. Sârbu, Corneliu. “Jesus Christ as the Supreme Prophet” (in Romanian). The Metropolitan Church of Banat 30, No. 1–​3 (1974): 19–​28. St. Ignatius the Theophorus. “The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians” (in Romanian). In The Fathers of the Church, Vol. 1, translated by Dumitru Fecioru. Bucharest: Ed. Institutului Biblic și de Misiune al Bisericii Ortodoxe Române, 1979. St. Maximus the Confessor. “Gnostic Heads” (in Romanian). In Philokalia, Vol. 2, translated by Dumitru Stăniloae. Sibiu: Tiparul Arhidiecezan, 1947. Stăniloae, Dumitru. Orthodox Dogmatic Theology (in Romanian). Vol. 1. Bucharest: Ed. Institutului Biblic și de Misiune Ortodoxă, 2010. Teoctist, Patriarhul României. “Foreword.” In On the life of Moses; or On Fulfilment through Virtue, Of Our Holy Father Gregory Bishop of Nyssa (in Romanian), translated by Ion Buga. Bucharest: Ed. Sf. Gheorghe Vechi, 1995. Thomson, Francis J. “The Slavonic Translations of the Old Testament.” In The Interpretation of the Bible: The International Symposium in Slovenia, edited by Jože Krašovec, 605–​920. Sheffield: Academic Press, 1998. Vassiliadis, Petros. “Canon and Authority of Scripture: An orthodox Hermeneutical Perspective.” In Das Alte Testament als christliche Bible in orthodoxer und westlicher Sicht, edited by Karl-​Wilhelm Niebuhr, James D. G. Dunn, Ulrich Luz, and Ivan Dimitrov, 259–​276. Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Vâlcea, Liviu. “Pages of Biblical History of the Old Testament. The Hasmonean Dynasty” (in Romanian). Revista Teologică 7, No. 2 (1997): 170–​198. Zizioulas, John D. Being as Communion. Studies in Personhood and the Church. New York: St. Vladimir’s Press, 1997.

Chapter 12

Liturgical U se a nd B iblical Canoni c i t y Petros Vassiliadis An Orthodox critical approach is an extremely difficult task. On what ground and from what sources can one really establish it? The Roman Catholics have Vatican II to draw from; the Orthodox do not. The Lutherans have an Augsburg Confession of their own; the Orthodox do not. The Holy and Great Council, held in Crete (June 2016), despite being defied by Russian Orthodoxy, though it is of equal magnitude as Vatican II and the Augsburg Confession, was not concerned with biblical issues. The only authoritative, therefore, so-​ called sources the Orthodox possess on biblical issues are in fact common to the rest of the Christians: The Bible and the Tradition. How can one establish a distinctly Orthodox approach on a basis that is common to non-​Orthodox as well? Another issue that makes an “Orthodox approach” problematic is that Orthodoxy always appears as something “exotic,” an interesting “eastern communitarian phenomenon” vis-​à-​vis the “western” individualistic mentality, provoking the curiosity and enriching the knowledge of Western believers and theologians. According to an eminent Orthodox theologian (J. Zizioulas), this role has been played enough up to now. In addition, there are modern Orthodox theologians (e.g., the late N. Nissiotis) who define Orthodoxy as meaning the wholeness of the people of God who share the right conviction (orthe doxa =​right opinion) concerning the event of God’s salvation in Christ and his Church, and the right expression (orthopraxia) of this faith. Everyone is, therefore, invited by Orthodoxy to transcend confessions and inflexible institutions without necessarily denying them. Orthodoxy is not to be identified only with us Orthodox in the historical sense and with all our limitations and shortcomings, especially the scholarly ones. The term was originally given to the Church as a whole over against the heretics who, of their own choice, split from the main body of the Church. The term is, thus, exclusive for all those, who willingly fall away from the historical stream of life of the One Church, but it is inclusive for those who profess their spiritual belonging to that stream. Orthodoxy, in other words, has ecclesial rather than confessional or even historical connotations. The liturgical use of the Bible cannot be properly addressed without a critical approach to specific issues pertinent to canonicity, the role of the Bible in the Church, its authority, etc. Despite all I said earlier as the necessary preliminary introductory remarks, the Orthodox

198   Petros Vassiliadis have issued from time to time semi-​official doctrinal statements concerning the Bible, which under certain theological conditions can lend authority to an Orthodox approach to any biblical issue. And these are the canons of certain local synods (Laodicea, Carthage, etc.) and of some Church Fathers (Athanasios, Basil, Gregory of Nazianzos, Amphilochios of Iconion), the canonical status of which became universal (ecumenical) through the decisions of the famous and at the same time controversial Penthekti (Quinisext) Council in Troullo (AD 691/​2). However, even these canons leave the issue of the number of the canonical books of the Old Testament (OT)—​and in some way (e.g., Revelation/​Apocalypse) of the New Testament (NT) too—​unsettled. It may not be an exaggeration to state that the undivided Church has not solved the issue of, and therefore not imposed on her members, a “closed” canon of the Bible (Pentiuc, 2014). The whole problem in a more rigid and authoritarian way was brought to the attention of the Orthodox only in the second millennium, after the theological discussions between Catholics and Protestants. After the model of the western “confessions,” a number of Confessions of the Orthodox Faith from the seventeenth century AD onward (Cyril, Mitrophanis, Mogila, Dositheos, etc.) started to come out, including statements concerning the canon of the Bible. With no problem in the content of the NT canon, these statements differ from both Catholic and Protestant only in the OT canon. But these statements, all coming from the period of their indirect engagement to the polemics between Catholics and Protestants, are no longer considered as representing the Orthodox tradition (Florovsky). In addition, some of them incline toward the wider canon of the OT (forty-​nine books), whereas others seem to support its smaller canon (thirty-​nine books), depending on their Catholic or Protestant source, or the “enemy” they wished to combat those days. In short, the Orthodox—​having to respond to the burning issue of their fellow Christians in the West—​seem to have settled and accepted as canonical: 1. With regard to the NT—​together with the Catholics and the Protestants—​the twenty-​ seven books canon of the NT in their usual order. It is to be noted, however, that the Apocalypse still enjoys a special status, having yet to enter the liturgical usage. The only remaining problem is the text the various autocephalous churches use in their liturgical services. The Greek speaking ones use the so-​called Patriarchal text, a Greek edition similar to the textus receptus, prepared by a synodical committee in 1904, whereas the Slavic churches use the Old Slavonic translation. The Romanian Orthodox Church uses an old Romanian translation. Only the so-​called diaspora (better, western Orthodox) and the new missionary (Asian and African) churches, plus the autonomous Finnish Orthodox Church, use modern translations, based on the critical text. It is an encouraging development that with the interconfessional Bible Societies movement, and the ecumenical cooperation with Catholics and Protestants, most Orthodox Churches are in the process of new common language translations. On a university and scholarly level, of course, the vast majority use the critical editions, despite their shortcomings. 2. With regard to the OT—​together with the Catholics the Protestants and the Jews—​for sure the thirty-​eight books of the tanakh (the Hebrew Scriptures), separating Esdras and Nehemiah and making a total of thirty-​nine. The only difference from Catholics and Protestants is that the official version in the Orthodox Church is not the Hebrew original, called the Masoretic text, but the Septuagint. In addition to those—​together

Liturgical Use and Biblical Canonicity    199 with the Catholics—​the Orthodox Church, following the tradition of the Early Church, has added ten more books to the canon, which are called Anagignoskomena (i.e., Readable, that is, worthy of reading). As in the Catholic Church, these are neither of secondary authority (i.e., deuterocanonical, a term invented in the sixteenth century by Sixtus of Siena), nor Apocrypha (i.e., noncanonical, as in the Protestant Churches), a term which in the ancient Christian tradition was given to other books (the Book of Jubilees, the Assumption of Moses, the Martyrdom of Isaiah, etc.) whose authority was rejected by the Church. Those are the books the Protestants normally call Pseudepigrapha. Some Orthodox scholars, under the influence of modern scholarship and terminology, apply to them alternatively the term (wrongly in my view) deuterocanonical. In view, however, of their wide use in the liturgy, their authority can hardly be differentiated from the so-​called canonical books of the Bible. It is also to be noted in addition that the Orthodox Anagignoskomena do not exactly coincide with the deuterocanonical books (only seven) of the Catholic Bible. In short, (1) with regard to the text the Orthodox accept the authenticity (some like Oikonomos ex Oikonomon even their inspiration!) of the Greek translation of the Septuagint; (2) with regard to the number of the Anagignoskomena, these are the Catholic deuterocanonical, plus Maccabees 3 and Esdras, and dividing Baruch from the Epistle of Jeremiah. There are some additional texts that are normally taken up in the Orthodox Bibles, and are either accorded some value (like the Prayer of Manasses and Psalm 151) or added as appendices (like Maccabees 4 in the Greek version alone, or (the deuterocanonical) Esdras 2 in the Slavonic version alone); (3) with regard to the sequence, as well as the naming, of the forty-​nine books these are as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy (=​Pentateuch), Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Vasileion (Regnorum) 1 and 2 (=​Samuel 1 and 2), Vasileion (Regnorum) 3 and 4 (=​Kings 1 and 2), Paralipomenon 1 and 2 (Chronicles 1 and 2), Esdras 1 (=​deuterocanonical), Esdras 2 and Nehemiah (=​the canonical Esdras), Esther (together with the deuterocanonical additions), Judith (=​deuterocanonical), Tobit (=​deuterocanonical; some editions [e.g., the 1928 Bratsiotis edition] follow the order of codex B and A, i.e., Tobit, Judith, Esther), Maccabees 1 and 2 (=​deuterocanonical), and 3 Psalms (in some editions plus Psalm 151 and the 9 Odes and the Prayer of Manasses), Job (in some editions after the Song of Songs), Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom of Solomon (=​deuterocanonical), Wisdom of Siracides (=​deuterocanonical), 12 Minor Prophets (starting with Hosea and ending with Malachias), Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch (=​ deuterocanonical), Lamentations, Epistle of Jeremiah (=​deuterocanonical), Ezekiel, Daniel (together with the deuterocanonical additions, i.e., Susana, the Prayer of Azariah and the Songs of the Three Youths, and the story of Bel and Dragon), and Maccabees 4 (as an appendix in the Greek versions only, whereas the Slavonic version, probably under western influence, contains also the second deuterocanonical Esdras). What has so far been presented is the “canon” of the Bible according to the modern established editions of the Bible, accepted and blessed by Orthodox ecclesiastical authorities. There is neither conciliar, nor official canonical or doctrinal authority attached to it yet. Not to mention, of course, that with the so-​called Oriental Orthodox Church the problem of the canon is still more complicated even for the NT, ranging from a shorter canon to a much wider one (thirty-​seven books in the Ethiopian Church). It was for this reason that in the agenda of the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church the canon of the

200   Petros Vassiliadis Bible was originally added for a final settlement. Unfortunately, it was later dropped from the final agenda. In addition to the issue of the canon and the text of the Bible, its authority in the Church also came into the fore from the very beginning of the Church’s life. In contrast to the historical Jesus’s contemporary Judaism, in which the supreme authority of every single word of the Bible was unquestionable, Jesus and the Early Church did not hesitate even to criticize Scripture and to interpret it in a very radical way. It was not only that they regarded the whole Bible in the light of the two great commandments (love of God and love of neighbor), or that Jesus established in the six antitheses of the Sermon on the Mount a new Law; one can even argue that Jesus’s messianic interpretation of Scripture—​namely the fulfillment of the prophesies in his mission—​was not novel, since similar messianic interpretations have been found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. What was novel and pioneering was Jesus’s revolutionary proclamation, and the early Church’s assured conviction, that the reign of God was at hand; in fact, it was inaugurated in Jesus’s own work. Moving now to St. Paul, we can say that it was not merely the rabbinic form in the exegesis of the OT with the striking feature of its verbalism and the emphasis on single words at the expense of context that was characterized by the Pauline interpretation; nor was the remarkable similarity between the exegetical work of Paul or of the author of Hebrews and that of Philo of Alexandria that can provide the clue to trace the trends of the early Christian hermeneutics. The early Church has never denied the reality of the OT history. Its main feature was a Christocentric dimension and character. To be honest, from St. Paul onward some criticism of the Law has reached some extreme positions, sometimes even to the point of its absolute rejection, especially in the hermeneutical tradition from the time of Luther onward. And nobody can argue that this was a mere rejection of legalism. The rejection of the Law is an issue to be examined in relation to a new hermeneutical principle (New Perspective). From the beginning of the second century, especially in the case of Bishop Ignatius of Antioch, Christian theologians did not replace the First Testament with the Second. They simply did not appeal in their argumentation to any Scripture, at least to the extent this has been done after the Reformation. It is significant, e.g., that Ignatius’s only authority was Jesus Christ and his saving work and the faith that comes through him (emoi ta archeia Christos: to me the “charters” are Jesus Christ). This new understanding of scriptural authority, a unique phenomenon in the process of the Judeo-​Christian religious thinking, was the result of the Early Christian pneumatology, with which Christianity opened up new dimensions in the understanding of the mystery of the divine revelation. For the first time humankind ceased to look backward to past authorities; instead, they turned their attention to the future, to the eschaton. The past no longer suppressed the present, but it was dynamically reinterpreted to give new meaning and new perspective to the future. By placing the Holy Spirit to an equal status in the Trinitarian dogma with the Father and the Son, later Christian theology of the early undivided Church broke the chains of fear and dependence on the past. The conciliar declaration of the divinity of the Holy Spirit was undoubtedly one of the most radical considerations of the mystery of deity. Christian pneumatology was not of course the only forward-​looking dogmatic definition. The principle conviction in Jesus’s resurrection and its consequences was also another mutatis mutandis forward-​looking belief, because the centuries-​long fear of death was vanquished: “Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, and to

Liturgical Use and Biblical Canonicity    201 those in the tombs, He has granted life,” triumphantly exclaims one of the oldest hymns of the Christian Church. Of course, the reality of death, the result of man’s fall, and of his free choice to disobey God and thus break communion with Him, was not abolished. Death, as human being’s ultimate enemy, “will be the last . . . to be destroyed” in the words of Apostle Paul (1 Cor 15:26). However, by His death Christ abolished the devil that until then had the power of death, thus liberating humanity that used to be enslaved by their fear of death. In the words of the author of the epistle to the Hebrews: “that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage” (Heb 2:14–​15. See also “putting an end to the agony of death . . . because you will not abandon my soul to Hades,” in the book of the Acts of the Apostles, 2:24 and 27). This conviction was preserved unchanged in the century-​long tradition of the Eastern Orthodox Church, where, Easter, that is the Resurrection, is re-​enacted not only every Sunday, especially during the Orthros, but also every year with even more joyfulness than in the Western world, where they celebrate more the Birth of our Savior. Regarding the liturgical use of the Bible in the entire Orthodox tradition, the decline of the Antiochian tradition played a significant, and even catalytic, role. An objective historian will certainly give some credit to the altera pars, namely to those who vigorously insist in no change whatsoever in liturgical matters, opposing at the same time any rehabilitation of the biblical basis of the Orthodox faith. But such a credit can only be given historically, not theologically. In my view the answer to this inherent ambiguity is latent since the early years, stemming especially from the confrontation between the two major theological centers of the emerging at that time religion: the Alexandrian and the Antiochian schools, but not on the basis of a different interpretation (allegory or not), but with far deeper theological reasons. This confrontation continued unabated until after the Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon, and although it emerged at a plainly interpretation level it shifted to a theological and Christological one, with excesses on both sides. The Antiochians consistently emphasized the historical dimension of the Word of God, which brought them close to the “rational” appropriation of the divine mystery, and the existence of the two natures of Christ, human (“Son of Mary”) and divine (“Son of God”) as opposed to the identity of God the Word with the historical Jesus, developed by the Alexandrian school, followed by the entire ecclesiastical tradition, with a particular ferocity in the Orthodox East, after the theological controversy between Gregory Palamas and Barlaam of Calabria. The positions of the Antiochians, which brought them into conflict with Alexandrian Monophysitism, led them to a mostly tolerant attitude toward Nestorianism, something that resulted in the final discrediting of the school and the final end of it after the fifth century AD. This essentially contributed to almost a minimal effect on subsequent theological production. Some of their representatives (Theodore of Mompsuestia and Theodoret of Cyre) were posthumously condemned by a synodical decision in the sixth century in the famous anathema of “Three Chapters” (the third one was Ivas of Edessa, also from the area of Antioch, in eastern Syria). This in fact contributed to the final victory in all later Christian interpretations of the ahistorical (allegorical and spiritual) method of the Alexandrian School, at the expense of the historical one of the Antiochian tradition. Only St. John Chrysostom remained unaffected, and his works continue to maintain the flame of historical, critical, and mostly reasonable approach to sacred texts up to the modern times,

202   Petros Vassiliadis when the universal prevalence of the historical-​critical principle in the interpretation of the Bible brought again to the fore the invaluable contribution of the Antiochian theological thinking, and with it the importance of the Bible in the life of the Church, especially the Orthodox. The predominance of the subsequent Church practice and theology of the Alexandrian, against the Antiochian, theological and interpretative tradition, had another deplorable side effect: It prevented the formation of a consistent Christian anthropology, based on the radical and innovative teaching on the resurrection by St. Paul (1 Cor 15:24–​26), especially his point that all believers have a share in the resurrected body of the living Christ. The diametrically opposite views of Dionysius of Alexandria (canon 2) and those of the Apostolic Diatages (Canon VI. 27) of Antiochian origin, but also of St. John Chrysostom (Homily on Hebrews, PG 63, 227ff, comment on Heb 13:4), regarding the validity in the Christian Church of the purity regulations of Leviticus regarding participation of women in the Eucharist, is quite characteristic. What is certain is that by including en bloc the canons of Dionysius of Alexandria in the Synod in Trullo, and the simultaneous rejection of the canons from the Antiochian tradition, more liberal on this issue, preserved the theological inconsistency between “theological” and “canonical” tradition in the Orthodox East, thus resulting in an ineffective witness in the contemporary world. Another canon of the Quinisext (highly valued as ecumenical in the Orthodox Church), the nineteenth, condemned any attempt thereafter of any autonomous and objective interpretation of Scripture, demanding that, “if any issue from the Bible is raised in the future, the only acceptable interpretation is the one given by the Holy Fathers.” And this was just the beginning. During the Ottoman rule there was even a ban on the translation of biblical texts. Another significant recent development in our theological argumentation was the overdose of eschatology, which has indirectly affected the quite prominent role of the Bible and its message in the Liturgy. The rediscovery of the eschatology in understanding the profound meaning of the Eucharist (with some patristic attestation [Maximus the Confessor]), in opposition to the (Antiochian mystagogical) “historical” of the Patriarch Germanos of Constantinople and the (Alexandrian/​neo-​Platonic?) “anagogical” of the Ps-​Dionysian school, is of course welcome; but its extension to the highly evangelistic first part of the Divine Liturgy, the so-​called Liturgy of the Word, an inseparable part of the Eucharist, has created a further problem. All Western Christians who have for the first time attended an Orthodox liturgy are astonished with dismay (some of them are even shocked) that the biblical “readings” (anagnosmata) are not read but chanted, as if they were designed not so much to enable the faithful to understand the word of God as to glorify an event, the eschatological kingdom of God, and the center of that event, Christ himself. This is one of the reasons why the Orthodox, though traditionally in favor of the translation of the Bible (and not only) in a language that people can understand (cf. the disagreement in the period of the Patriarch of Constantinople Photios between Rome and Constantinople on the legitimacy of the use of the Slavonic language, i.e., a language outside the three “sacred” ones: Hebrew, Greek, Latin), are generally reluctant to use the Prophetic, Apostolic, and Gospel readings from a modern translation in their official liturgical services. Today among some systematic theologians there is a widespread view (fortunately still a theologoumenon) that the entire Divine Liturgy, i.e., both the “Liturgy of the Word” and the “Eucharistic Liturgy,” is oriented toward the eschaton. Some great Orthodox theologians still have the view that during the Liturgy of the Word—​which in the Orthodox Church is

Liturgical Use and Biblical Canonicity    203 inseparable from the Eucharistic Liturgy—​it is not Jesus Christ in his First Coming, who proclaims the Good News, the “word of God” through the reading of the Bible, but the glorified Lord in his Second Coming! Closely related to the overdose of eschatology, with regard to the use and the more substantial role of the Bible in the Orthodox liturgy, but from the opposite side, is the obvious defects of the prevailing “modern” understanding of the Bible. According to the standards of modernism, the Bible can be interpreted authentically: (1) by a “magisterium, apparently because some clerics are considered to have received the power and the right from Christ Himself to represent Him as successors of the Apostles. In this way, the word of God is interpreted authentically only by a clergyman, mainly a bishop, and finally the pope—​always as a person, and under any circumstances whatsoever. Or (2) through the word of God itself, which means—​as most Protestants still believe—​the Scripture is interpreted through the Scripture alone (sola scriptura), and it is a matter of proper scientific research to find its authentic meaning. This kind of “modern” approach to the Bible has created many problems indeed. With regard to the first approach (Roman Catholic, but to a certain degree also Orthodox), the natural question raised is: Why should a bishop be regarded as infallible, or why should an entire synod of bishops be considered infallible, or why should the pope be infallible? As to the second (mainly Protestant) position, another problem is raised, which today preoccupies everyone, at least among the academics: How can the Bible be interpreted by the Bible and by scientific analysis, when we all know that it was also subject to certain historical and cultural influences, which do not continue to apply forever? This is why some Protestants today are forced to look for a canon within the canon, seeking certain criteria on the basis of which they can locate whether something in the Holy Bible is truly authentic. All these have as their starting point the modern approach to the truth, which places the essence of the Church and the essence of the truth in decrees that were shaped in the past (including the Bible and even the synodical decisions). A norm is defined, decided, and imposed in the past, and we now struggle to adhere to it faithfully. It is on the surface of this perception that all the problems regarding the hermeneutics of the Bible, but also the authority of the bishop, of the synods, of the pope, etc., are located. This problem was very seldom raised in the undivided Church, where the Scriptures were interpreted within the congregating Church. There, what mattered was not just the narration of how things happened; it was the way things will happen and will be. There the word of God always had an eschatological nuance, coming to us not from the past, but from the future. What can the Holy Bible tell us, outside the congregation of the Church? It will tell us other things. St. John Chrysostom, analyzing the term “syllable” (in Greek συλλαβή =​conception, arresting) says that “syllabizing” signifies that which the mind conceives/​grasps noetically, therefore normal reading is a conceptualizing by the nous. But the word of God can never be conceived/​ grasped because it is far greater than us. It is the word of God that conceives/​grasps us. And St. John Chrysostom goes on, saying that through chanting (instead of reading), the word of God is “opened up”; the syllable is opened up and it incorporates us, as opposed to us “conquering” it (Zizioulas). This reminds us of the Pauline “νῦν δὲ γνόντες θεόν, μᾶλλον δὲ γνωσθέντες ὑπὸ θεου” (knowing God, rather being known by God, Gal 4:9). This conquering tendency of knowledge that we apply to things is the same one that we apply every time we strive to make the Scriptural readings comprehensible, to apprehend the readings! Can one truly apprehend the word of God, or comprehend it? Some Orthodox

204   Petros Vassiliadis insist that the most appropriate method of knowledge is the one based on the communion of persons, and not just on the work of the mind. The Bible cannot speak to us in the same manner when we read it at home, as compared to when the word of God is read and heard in the Church. There was a time when a slogan was widespread in my Church, that the greatest destroyers of the word of God in the Church are the preachers! Theologically speaking, therefore, any attempt to apprehend or comprehend the word of God is not a spiritual but a “modern” phenomenon. And the Gospel for the Orthodox is never just a book one can open and read. It is almost a person. One kneels before it, during the (small) “entrance” of the Gospel the people make the sign of the Cross and kiss it, gestures that surely signify something deeper. With all these heavy theological legacies, the most vibrant Greek-​speaking autocephalous Orthodox Church, the Church of Greece, has recently decided at a high synodical level to proceed to a “Liturgical Renewal.” According to most Orthodox theologians of our time, the Church fulfills its proper saving mission not by what she normally does (social and moral ethics), or by what she says (dogmatic teaching), but mainly by what she is. This esse, in other words her identity and self-​consciousness, is nothing else than the vision of a new world different from the conventional one we live in, the vision of the expected Kingdom of God. And this vision is in effect the transcendent, and expected at the eschaton, ultimate reality, different and beyond our present, created, conventional, and perishable reality. This alternative reality is authentically expressed by the Church in the Eucharist, in which the faithful experience as a glimpse and foretaste the glory of God’s Kingdom, called at the same time, i.e., in the Liturgy after the liturgy to witness it to the world. A Church without this holy “mission” is simply not a Church. Although for many Christians it may seem paradoxical, the Church does not exist for herself but for the world, now officially decreed by the Holy and Great Council. Liturgical Renewal, as an ecclesiastical desideratum is of course a relatively new phenomenon in the Church’s life, mainly motivated by the stagnation and the loss of the original meaning of the community’s liturgical communal acts. It has, however, indirect—​if not direct—​consequences to the issue of the liturgical use of the Bible. Edward Farley, in his book Deep Symbols: Their Postmodern Effacement and Reclamation, notes: [M]‌any of the problems of modern society are partly due to the loss of “deep symbols” i.e. those values with which each society defines itself and fulfills its aspirations. These values define the faith, ethics, and action of community members, form the consciousness of individuals, and maintain the cohesion of the society. In modern society these fundamental to the spiritual existence and the survival of humanity symbols have been marginalized to such an extent that it is almost impossible to reactivate them. For this reason, modern people should either redefine these symbols, or learn to live without them. (p. 3)

Of course, the term that was chosen in order to set the limits and to determine the role of this commission refers to a much wider area than the liturgical life of the Church. The liturgical renewal in the contemporary theological discipline is not limited to “how” the Church should worship God but is also extended to what the liturgical event is all about. In other words, it covers all the necessary steps or measures, which all Orthodox Churches must constantly take, in order to redefine their identity. It is, therefore, an ecclesiological imperative. One can even argue that in theological terms it can (or rather better should) be applied to all areas of the theological discipline, from the purely practical to the strictly theological

Liturgical Use and Biblical Canonicity    205 ones. And this was the result of a newly developed discipline, that of “liturgical theology,” the primary components of which are: (1) the importance of the “ecclesial”/​“Eucharistic” event, over and above any “theological” production of the Christian community; (2) the priority of the “experience” over the “word”/​“reason”; (3) the uniqueness of “communion” compared to the “message”/​“kerygma” or “confession”; and (4) a redefined relationship between “Eucharist” and “Bible.” The Leitourgia, i.e., the common worship of the community (as opposed to the individual prayer), and especially the Eucharist as the central and identifying bond of it, which nowadays is the only liturgical service attended by the vast majority of the Orthodox, at least in Greece, became subject of extensive reflection. With regard to the Bible and its liturgical use, from the very beginning of this renewal effort in Greece I underlined three particular areas with regard to the biblical readings, which are in a desperate need of change: (1) the lectionary, (2) the performance, (3) the translation. Of course, there was a certain prehistory in the Greek-​speaking Orthodoxy concerning the renewal of the Church life, focusing on the liturgy through a campaign for a biblical awareness of the grassroots people, not to mention of course the biblical renaissance that took place in the academic field, and a biblical renewal with quite popular bible studies. Certain efforts for items (2) and (3) earlier had already been made by the religious organizations (ZOE), which by the way were the first to publish a translation into Modern Greek of the entire Divine Liturgy, having in addition widely disseminated their translated Bibles (mainly NT) but only for private use (3). They had also tried to teach how the Bible readings should be performed in the liturgical services, making them again anagnosmata (2). But no attempt has been made, nor was any thought given, to the lectionary—​the selection and the sequence of the biblical readings in all daily and sacramental services. I recommended the use of translated Bible readings, participation of women in their reading, and change of the lectionary from a 1-​to a 2-​or 3-​year cycle, in order that more didactic pericopae be included. It is an unhealthy situation not to listen, e.g., to the Sermon on the Mount (the Beatitudes are no longer read/​sung nowadays, except in rare cases when the Sabbaitic liturgical typicon is followed), repeating instead only Miracle stories; there are still no readings in any liturgical service from the book of Revelation, the most liturgical book of the NT (!), etc.; In addition to these recommendations, I also suggested more readings on the themes of unity, communion, etc.; more emphasis on the reading (than on the chanting) character of the “readings” (anagnosmata), and the introduction of more “biblical” songs in addition to the “patristic” (mostly “monastic”) ones. With regard to a biblical and liturgical renewal in the Church of Greece, there was also a negative background, which, by the way, especially in liturgical matters affected the entire Greek-​speaking Orthodox Christianity. For more than three generations, Greek society all over the world was split on the issue of the use of the vernacular language in two bitterly opposed fronts: on the one hand the progressive, intellectual, etc., and all the non-​Orthodox minority communities, and on the other hand the conservatives, mostly religious people, politically conservative, the ecclesiastical establishment, etc. During the period of the official campaign of the Church of Greece for a liturgical renewal (1999 onward), which would entail a more biblical renewal in liturgical matters, including the use of translated reading and beyond, in addition to the cultural (the classical Greek of both the Bible and the Liturgy was considered as the main element of preserving the national identity) and political, a further argument was added: the anti-​ecumenical one;

206   Petros Vassiliadis the translation of the Bible was considered as an inclination toward the Protestant tradition, whereas the entire set of the liturgical renewal, which indirectly supported a translated liturgy with translated Bible readings, was accused as an imitation of the measures taken by the Vatican II Council of the Catholic Church. Along these anti-​ecumenical, and particularly anti-​Catholic, lines the anti-​biblical/​ anti-​liturgical-​renewal theological group invented an additional argument, which has unconsciously convinced almost the entire ecclesiastical establishment. In simple terms the argument runs as follows: The Western, non-​Orthodox, approach to the truth, and by extension to the liturgy and the comprehension of the word of God/​Bible, is normally through reason and understanding (katanoesis), whereas the Orthodox approach is through methexis, a mystical and spiritual participation in the mystery of salvation without the medium of reason. It is not accidental that the only timid reaction in America, especially in Orthodox Church in America, to the liturgical reforms, the most radical of them all being the uttering of the prayers of the Eucharistic anaphora loudly (and not secretly by the clergy alone), was taken from the Bible, from the example of the . . . silent prayer of Hannah in 1 Sam 1:13. In Greece this kind of argument was avoided as coming from the “heretic” Protestant tradition. Instead, all kinds of “mystical” arguments paraded to prevent the only “official” (initiated by Church authorities) decision for a liturgical (and indirectly biblical) renewal in today’s Orthodox world. At that moment an unexpected initiative was undertaken in a remote rural diocese, that of the apostolic city of Nikopolis (and Preveza), by its late bishop, Meletios (Kalamaras), and almost the entirety of his priests and monastics. Without publicity, they started step by step not only using all the priestly payers from a modern Greek translation, but uttering them loudly, using of course the Bible readings in translation in all liturgical services. The most extraordinary thing in this case is that Metropolitan Meletios was one of the most revered, traditional, highly educated, and ascetic personalities of the Church establishment, who had previously served in the Synodical Commission for Inter-​Orthodox and Inter-​ Christian Relations of the Church of Greece. Even more extraordinary was that he was recruited by some conservatives within the Church to make a lengthy report to the Holy Synod recommending that the Church of Greece withdraw her eventual blessing of the second edition of the 1989 translation of the NT, which he did! However, he had the courage to publicly acknowledge his mistake and for pastoral purposes not only made use of it but also introduced, together with his clergy, the translation of the Eucharistic liturgy. Before his death (2012) he even published a book, with the telling title Methexi or Understanding? (2011), arguing with comprehensive, concentrated biblical and patristic views, that the translation of biblical and liturgical texts, as well as their use in the Orthodox worship, was not only theologically legitimate but absolutely necessary. With his death, his initiative, the last promising sign for a liturgical renewal in the Church of Greece, came to an end. It is not accidental that the original biblical, and socially oriented prophetic hymns (Kanons) have been gradually overwhelmed in most cases by individualistic prayers/​ hymns, mostly composed by monastics to meet their struggle against the Devil. Thus, the primary aim of the Kanons, especially the first and leading one, which praises the liberating God for leading his people out of the Egyptian oppression and slavery, with all that this remembrance entails for the witness of the Church, almost disappeared. In addition, all the OT readings, which had a prominent place in all ancient Eucharistic Liturgies, were gradually removed from the Divine Liturgy and pushed to the Vespers. This

Liturgical Use and Biblical Canonicity    207 change seems to be intentional, and theologically motivated. In late Byzantium a theory was developed that the three main daily liturgical services (Vespers, Matins/​Orthros, Divine Liturgy), follow the tripartite model of σκιά (shadow =​OT—​Vespers)—​εικών (image =​NT—​ present reality—​Orthros)—​αλήθεια (truth =​eschaton—​Eucharist). With this scheme, however, all the dynamism of the prophetic word was unconsciously relegated. And not only this; even under this structure the radical message of the Prophets for the contemporary life of the people of God was step by step marginalized, or replaced by less dynamic, and mostly individualistic, texts from the (deuterocanonical) sophiological literature. Needless to say, how urgent for a proper liturgical life, and especially for a liturgy after the liturgy, is a thorough reform of the Orthodox lectionary! The only Orthodox community that adopted a modest (not very radical) new 2-​year-​cycle lectionary is the monastic community of the New Skete in the United States! All these, and especially the reluctance of our Church to proceed to a radical reform in the lectionary, as the minimum of a comprehensive liturgical renewal, are the result of the loss of the biblical, missionary, and contextual character of the Orthodox ecclesial self-​ consciousness. At the bottom of this development was the unconscious loss of the prophetic character of the Church. Ironically, these very elements were the basic spiritual means that helped a tiny Jewish sect conquer the mighty Roman Empire. To take the argument to the extreme, one can fairly argue that the Orthodox Church has gradually, step by step, marginalized the very characteristics of the Church we confess in the Creed, i.e., her oneness, her holiness, her catholicity, and her apostolicity. We, therefore, need to rediscover the very meaning of the “liturgy,” and this can only be done by retrieving the lost elements of the OT. Is not this, what the Fathers of the Church, mutatis mutandis, did? Only by going back to the origins of the liturgical practice of the people of God can we explain what happened and how the Christian liturgy from a radical event of Christian witness became an end in itself, losing almost all its dynamism. Only in this way can one realize the importance of the Bible in the Orthodox Church’s witness, and of course reject the appalling fundamentalist hermeneutics. The first Christians developed their liturgical behavior in accordance with the idea of the covenant, particularly through the commitment of the people with God and with one another to the memory of the events of the Exodus, when the Israelites experienced the liberating grace of God. The liturgy, therefore, was originally understood as the obligation to worship God, who had led them in particular historical circumstances to liberation, salvation, justice, and peace. The liturgy, however, of the people of God was also a constant reminder of a commitment to a moral and ethical life, and an obligation for resistance against any oppression and exploitation of their fellow men and women. In this sense, the worshiping community was supposed to be also a witnessing community. With the construction of the Temple of Solomon, the religious life of the community turned into a cult incumbent with the necessary professional priesthood and the necessary financial transactions. Jesus’s action against the money changers is quite indicative of the new situation. His repeated appeal to mercy/​eleon, instead of sacrifice, is yet another reminder of the real purpose of liturgy. It has been convincingly argued that the Israel under the monarchy unconsciously slipped into three dangerous situations that perverted the original meaning of liturgy: (1) the greed of those in power led to financial exploitation of the weak; (2) a hierarchical social order was imposed, leading to the political oppression of the weak for the sake of the

208   Petros Vassiliadis emerging state; and (3) the establishment of a formal and conventional worship, agreed to serve the kingdom and its political allies. In ­chapter 8 of the first book of Samuel the conversation of Yahweh with Samuel is highly instructive, underlining the implications of this radical change in the relationship between God and his people, when they asked him to provide them with a king. All these were the consequence of, or resulted in, the imposition of private property in Israel, which caused a strong protest and action by the Prophets. Previously the governing principle was divine ownership of all the material wealth, according to the Psalmist’s affirmation: “the Earth is the Lord’s and all that is in it, the world, and those who live in it” (Psalm 24:1). The economic injustice replaced the justice of God, and the personal accumulation of wealth the equality in acquiring the necessary material goods for survival. Amos and Hosea in the Northern Kingdom before its dissolution in 722 BC, and Isaiah, Micah, Jeremiah, Habakkuk, and Ezekiel in Judea, began to speak of the main components of liturgy: i.e., Law and Justice, values that were lost because of the new conception of ownership, which changed the traditional concept of society (communion) and completely perverted the real purpose of liturgy. For the OT Prophets, the abolition of justice and the cancellation of the rights of the poor meant above all rejection of God Himself. Prophet Jeremiah, e.g., insisted that knowing God was identical with being fair toward the poor (Jer 22:16). Prophet Isaiah carried his criticism against the introduction of individual property even further, when he spoke about the greed and avarice as manifested by the accumulation of land: “Woe to those who add to their home and joins the field with the field, so that now there is no other place for them to stay” (Is 5:8). He did not hesitate to characterize the greedy landlords as “thieves” (1:23) and characterize the confiscation of the land of indebted farmers as a grab at the expense of the poor. Therefore, for the future of the Orthodox witness I propose a combination of the prophetic and eschatological dimension of the Orthodox faith. With no thorough liturgical renewal the groaning of the creation (Rom 8:23) and the cries of people in poverty (Jer 14:2–​7) will never alert the faithful to just how much their current social, economic, and ecological state of emergency runs counter to God’s vision for life in abundance (Jn 10:10). Especially in our days many traditional Orthodox construct divisions, barriers, and boundaries to distance themselves from other Christians, from their neighbor, from nature, and from God’s justice. Communities are fragmented and relationships broken. Greed and self-​centeredness endanger both people and planet Earth. All these must be urgently included in the Orthodox praying life. And this can only be done with a thorough biblical and liturgical renewal. I propose to focus only on the exact nature of our Christian (and of course Orthodox) eschatology, which I think is the interpretative key to decode all the issues addressed here. First, it should be emphasized that Christian eschatology is neither a denial of history, nor something like an addition to history and the past. The eschatology in its authentic Christian understanding is rather an invasion of the eschaton into our historical reality. The eschaton “invades” history through the Holy Spirit, especially during the Eucharist. That is why a liturgical (and at the same time biblical) renewal is an imperative! It is within this context that concepts like “word of God,” “Bible,” and also other elements of the life and mission of the Church, even “priesthood,” acquire their true meaning. Underlining the

Liturgical Use and Biblical Canonicity    209 eschatological dimension of the Church, by no means do we deny the reasonable and critical scientific process as such; and of course, we do not reject the scientific interpretation of the Bible. We only question the scientific knowledge as the only and proper way in which the Bible is recognized as a word of God. The Church has a different context in which she places the Bible, so that it can eventually “speak” to the faithful as God’s word. All subjects, therefore, associated with the Bible, not as a literary product of humanity, but as “the” Book of the Church, are conditioned by eschatology, and of course are closely related to ecclesiology. The key issue for the Church is the relational rather than the cognitive dimension of a worshiping community, coming together to prefigure the perfect eschatological reality of God’s Kingdom, with a task (mission) to transform the world. With the penetration of scholasticism, and later of modernity, this invasion of the End Times in the historical reality was canceled, or at least marginalized. And this resulted in a history completely unhooked from eschatology. The latter either: (1) has come to refer only the “realm beyond history” or (2) is subconsciously identified with some charismatic experience of an elite who are isolated from the historical context of the ecclesial community, considered (as by some early heretical groups) as second class. Such an understanding of eschatology destroys ecclesiology. By dissociating the unity of the Church of Saints from the historical Church community, the “triumphant” from the “militant” Church, it is doubtful if we can call “Church” any historical Church community.

References Bartholomew, His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch, Encountering the Mystery: Understanding Orthodox Christianity Today, Doubleday: New York, London, Toronto, Sydney, Auckland 2008. Bria, Ion, Liturgy after the Liturgy: Mission and Witness from an Orthodox Perspective, WCC Publications: Geneva 1996. Florovsky, G., “The Elements of Liturgy,” in G. Patelos (ed.), The Orthodox Church in the Ecumenical Movement, Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1978, 172–​182. Kalamaras, Meletios (Metr. of Nikopolis and Preveza), Methexi or Katanoese? Holy Diocese of Nikopolis and Preveza: Preveza 2011. Nissiotis, N., “Interpreting Orthodoxy,” ER 14 (1961) 1–​27. Pentiuc, E. J., The Old Testament in Eastern Orthodox Tradition, Oxford University Press: New York 2014. Staniloae, D., Theology and the Church, SVS Press: New York 1980. Stylianopoulos, Th., The New Testament: An Orthodox Perspective, Volume One: Scripture, Tradition, Hermeneutics, HC Orthodox Press: Boston 1997. Vassiliadis, P. (ed.), Orthodox Perspectives on Mission, Regnum Edinburgh Centenary Series 17: Oxford 2013. Vassiliadis, P., Eucharist and Witness: Orthodox Perspectives on Unity and Mission of the Church, WCC-​HC Press: Geneva-​Boston 1998. Vassiliadis, P., Lex Orandi: Liturgical Theology and Liturgical Renewal, Indiktos Publications, series Ιdiomela 5: Athens 2005 (in Greek). Vassiliadis, P., “Scriptural Authority in Early Christian Hermeneutics,” in Μνήμη Ιωάννου Ευ. Αναστασίου, Thessaloniki: Thessaloniki School of Theology Press 1992, 51–​59.

210   Petros Vassiliadis Vassiliadis, P., “L’ Eschatologie dans la Vie de l’ Église: Une Perspective Chrétien Orthodoxe et son Impact sur la Vie de la Société,” Irénikon 73 (2000) 316–​334. Vassiliadis, P., “Τhe Canon of the Bible: Or the Authority of Scripture from an Orthodox Perspective,” in L’ Αutorité de l’ Écriture, edited by Jean-​Michel Poffet, Paris: Cerf 2002, 113–​135. Vassiliadis, P., “Canon and Authority of Scripture: An Orthodox Hermeneutical Perspective,” in I. Z. Dimitrov et al. (eds.), Das Alte Testament als christliche Bibel in orthodoxer und westlicher Sicht, Μοhr Siebeck: Tübingen 2004, 259–​276. Vassiliadis, P., “La rinascita liturgica e la Chiesa Greca,” in H. Legrand et al. (eds.), Nicola Cabasilas e la divina liturgia, edizione Qiqajon: Bose 2007, 253–​281; and its updated form in “The Liturgical Renewal and the Church of Greece,” in Holy Scripture and Ancient World. Fs to Prof. John Galanis, Pournaras Press: Thessaloniki 2010, 537–​565. Vassiliadis, P., “The Word of God and the Church from an Orthodox Perspective,” in Χριστόδουλος. Αφιερωματικός Τόμος, Holy Synod of the Church of Greece: Athens 2010, 539–​561. Vassiliadis, P., “Ο Θεολογικός Προβληματισμός για τις Μεταφράσεις των Εκκλησιαστικών Κειμένων. Διάλογος με τους Μητροπολίτες Πρεβέζης και Ναυπάκτου” (The Theological Problem on the Translation of the Liturgical Texts: A Dialogue with the Metropolitans of Preveza and Nafpaktos), ΔΒΜ 28 (2010) 34–​48. Ware, Kallistos (Metr. of Diokleia), “How to Read the Bible,” The Orthodox Study Bible, Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville 1992, 762–​770. Zizioulas, John (Metropolitan of Pergamon), Being as Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church, SVS Press: Crestwood 1985. Zizioulas, John (Metropolitan of Pergamon), “The Mystery of the Church in Orthodox Tradition,” One in Christ 24 (1988) 294–​303.

Chapter 13

The Biblical C a non of t he Ethiopian Ort h od ox Tawāh ǝ d o Churc h ( E OTC ) Daniel Assefa Introduction The aim of this chapter is to examine the biblical canon of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tawāhǝdo Church (EOTC), with special focus on its peculiarity. The Ethiopian biblical canon of the EOTC records the largest number of books in Christian tradition. How can we understand this situation? Does it mean the EOTC uses more measures absent from other churches? Or, did other churches overlook some criteria appreciated by the EOTC? These questions will be addressed in three steps. The first focuses on early Christianity, the second on the medieval period, and the last on contemporary time.

The Criteria of Canonicity The notion of a biblical canon presupposes revelation and inspiration. Christian communities believe that divine revelation is contained in their sacred Scriptures and that their authors have been inspired.1 The liturgy and the teaching of the Church derive from inspired books. Now, the concept of canon implies also demarcation. To validate the canonicity of some books is also to deny status to other books. Besides, as will be shown in what follows, the

1  For a thorough study of these themes, see Louis Alonso Schökel, The Inspired Word: Scripture in the Light of Language and Literature (London: Burns & Oates, 1967). Paul J. Achtemeier, Inspiration and Authority: Nature and Function of Christian Scripture (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1999). Denis Farkasfalvy, A Theology of the Christian Bible: Revelation, Inspiration, Canon (Washington: The Catholic University of America, 2018).

212   Daniel Assefa criteria of canonicity in themselves may have limitations. Often, a combination of different criteria justifies the inclusion of a book in the biblical canon. McDonald enumerates four criteria of canonicity for New Testament books: apostolicity, orthodoxy, antiquity, and usage. To these he adds two measures: adaptability and inspiration.2 With some modifications, some of these criteria can also be applied to the books of the Old Testament.

Apostoliticy The criterion of apostolicity relies on succession from Christ to the Apostles, and from the latter to the ecclesiastical authority. A text composed by an apostle, or a figure associated with an apostle, was reckoned as canonical. Among the four canonical Gospels, two are attributed to the apostles Matthew and John. The other two are ascribed to Mark, and Luke who are respectively linked with Peter and Paul. On the other hand, if it was believed that a text was not written by an apostle or someone associated with an apostle it was excluded from the canon.3 Although there were already doubts about the apostolicity of some writings in ancient times, the situation is quite different today, where modern exegesis questions the authorship of a large number of the writings of the New Testament. Yet, until the rise of the historical critical method, both the East and the West accepted the apostolicity of most of the books of the New Testament.

Orthodoxy It was not enough to ascertain a book’s apostolicity. If that were the case, many more books, Gospels, Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypses would have been included in the New Testament. For recognition, the text was tested against the “rule of faith.” Be that as it may, there are cases where this criterion becomes limited. Without denying the existence of a minimum consensus concerning the person of Christ and his redemptive role, McDonald says: Several scholars have argued that one of the distinguishing features of the New Testament literature is the truth, or canon of faith, that it presents. However, as one examines the New Testament literature carefully, it is difficult to reconcile many of its theological positions and practical guidelines for living.4

According to Farmer, the way Jesus read and interpreted the Law and the Prophets of the Old Testament is fundamental for understanding the Christian canon. The meaning of his death and resurrection as presented in the Gospels, Pauline epistles, and other texts

2  Lee Martin McDonald, “Identifying Scripture and Canon in the Early Church: The Criteria Question,” in The Canon Debate, edited by Lee Martin McDonald and James A. Sanders (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2002), 423–​439. 3  McDonald, “Identifying Scripture and Canon in the Early Church,” 424. 4  McDonald, “Identifying Scripture and Canon in the Early Church,” 428–​429.

the Ethiopian Orthodox Tawāhǝdo Church (EOTC)    213 of the New Testament constitute the criterion for accepting or excluding a text from the biblical canon.5 The criterion of orthodoxy is also relevant in the case of the Old Testament. Books that did not fulfill the standard set by Jewish authority were not recognized as Scripture. The canonicity of the Song of Songs and the Ecclesiastes was, for instance, questioned before the closing of the Jewish canon.6 Also, the suspicion of prophetic and apocalyptic literature led to the exclusion of some books from the Jewish canon of the first or the second century AD.7 The same phenomenon may explain the rejection of some books widely used by different Christian communities.8

Antiquity The criterion of antiquity would exclude a book believed to have been composed after the period of the Apostles.9 However, as McDonald underlines it, this criterion needs to be accompanied by apostolicity and orthodoxy. A text contemporary with the books of the New Testament may be discarded for failure to meet the criterion of apostolicity or orthodoxy.10

Use If a text is constantly read, interpreted, and used in worship by the majority of important Christian communities, it had a chance of being recognized as canonical.11 However, this criterion too has its limitations. McDonald shows that some books, although canonical, are in fact rarely quoted. Meanwhile some other books are frequently used even if they do not belong to the canon. Thus, 1 Clement, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, Barnabas, and the Epistles of Ignatius were more frequently quoted and used than Philemon, Jude, 2 Peter, and 2 and 3 John.12

5  William R. Farmer, “Reflections on Jesus and the New Testament Canon,” in The Canon Debate, edited by Lee Martin McDonald and James A. Sanders (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2002), 339–​340. 6  Jack Lewis, “Jamnia Revisited,” in The Canon Debate, edited by Lee Martin McDonald and James A. Sanders (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2002), 147ff. 7  Some of these books had importance among the Dead Scrolls until they were excluded afterward; John Collins, “Canon, Canonization,” in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism, ed. John Collins and Daniel Harlow (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 461–​463. 8  McDonald, “Identifying Scripture and Canon in the Early Church,” 433. 9 According to Lightstone, in the case of the Old Testament, books written after Ezra were not reckoned as canonical; Jack Lightstone, “The Rabbis’ Bible: The Canon of the Hebrew Bible and the Early Rabbinic Guild,” in The Canon Debate, edited by Lee Martin McDonald and James A. Sanders (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2002), 184. 10  McDonald, “Identifying Scripture and Canon in the Early Church,” 430–​431. 11  The same may be affirmed of the Pentateuch, which is central to Jewish liturgy. 12  McDonald, “Identifying Scripture and Canon in the Early Church,” 433–​433.

214   Daniel Assefa

Adaptability According to McDonald, adaptability has played a role in the determination of canonicity. Some texts that were used at an early age of Christianity, like Barnabas, 1 Clement, the Epistles of Ignatius, and the Shepherd of Hermas were left out afterward, because they failed to be relevant in new circumstances. Their later rejection indicates to a certain extent that the canon was not yet closed in early Christianity. It would have been difficult to exclude them had the canon been closed earlier, before the fourth century AD.13 For Sanders, relevance or adaptability to the changing needs of a community is the major criterion for the authority and canonicity of a book, both of the Old and the New Testament.14

Inspiration Even though inspiration precedes canonicity, the latter comes before the awareness and the recognition of a book’s inspiration. Once a book is included in the list, Christians accept its inspiration. MacDonald sustains that inspiration was “a corollary,” rather than a criterion, of canonicity. He also underlines two problems in this connection. First, it is not easy to distinguish between an inspired and a noninspired text, due, among other things, to the ambiguity of the term “inspiration” itself.15 Second, inspiration is not limited to writings. It was also attributed to oral phenomena like teachings and sermons.16

The Ancient Ethiopian Biblical Canon The translation of the Bible into Ge’ez or classical Ethiopic begins with Christianity’s official adoption by the Kingdom of Aksum in the fourth century AD.17 The process of translation must have continued up to the seventh century AD.18 Inscriptions of the Aksumite kingdom from the beginning of the sixth century indicate that at least the Psalms and the Gospels were translated at an earlier age.19 However, it is difficult to be more precise concerning the various steps undertaken during that period. Tradition has it that nine saints of Syrian origin went to Ethiopia as missionaries in the fifth century AD and played an important

13 

McDonald, “Identifying Scripture and Canon in the Early Church,” 434. James Sanders, “The Issue of Closure in the Canonical Process,” in The Canon Debate, edited by Lee Martin McDonald and James A. Sanders (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2002), 258–​263. 15  There is a whole range of words that are related to inspiration. 16  McDonald, “Identifying Scripture and Canon in the Early Church,” 435. 17  Sergew Hable Selassie, Ancient and Medieval Ethiopia History to 1270 (Addis Ababa: United Printers, 1972), 97–​112. 18  Ignazio Guidi, Storia della letteratura Etiopica (Roma: Istituto Per L’Oriente, 1932), 15. 19  Michael Knibb, Translating the Bible: The Ethiopic Version of the Old Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 46–​54. A. Tedros, “The Biblical Canon of the Orthodoks Täwaḥədo Church of Ethiopia and Eritrea,” in Il Canone Biblico Nelle Chiese Orientali: Atti del simposio Pontifico Istituto Orientale, Roma 23 marzo 2010 (Roma: Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 2017), 95–​122, 103. 14 

the Ethiopian Orthodox Tawāhǝdo Church (EOTC)    215 role in the translation of the sacred Scriptures.20 Their Syrian origin and their presumable influence on the Vorlage of the Ge’ez Gospels has been a matter of debate among scholars.21 The majority of scholars favor the Septuagint as the Vorlage of the Ge’ez Bible for what concerns early Christianity. There is also a large consensus regarding a revision of the Ge’ez text in the fourteenth century through the influence of Arabic texts. A further revision is also supposed to have taken place in the sixteenth century in light of the Masoretic text.22 As mentioned earlier, early Christianity did not have a clear-​cut and complete biblical canon until the fourth century. Nevertheless, the issue of the four Gospels seems to have been settled earlier, perhaps in the second century AD.23 The same may be said of Pauline literature.24

Criteria of Canonicity Apostolicity Most of the twenty-​seven books of the New Testament are included in the canon because of, among other measures, their association with the Apostles. Athanasius, Patriarch of Alexandria, in his Festal Epistle 39 (AD 367), mentions the twenty-​seven books of the New Testament.25 While it is noteworthy that Athanasius sent the first bishop for Ethiopia in the person of Frementius between AD 346 and 357,26 nothing can be said of a possible influence on the Ethiopian biblical canon.27 The Ethiopian tradition gives authority to eight volumes in addition to the twenty-​seven books of the New Testament.28 These are: Ethiopic Sinodos in four

20 Sergew

Hable Selassie, Ancient and Medieval Ethiopia History to 1270. For a recent study on the narratives related to the nine saints, see Antonella Brita, I raconti tradizionali sulla “seconda cristianizzazione dell’Etiopia”: Il ciclo agiografico dei Nove Santi =​Studi Africanistici. Serie Etiopica 7 (Napoli: Università degli Studi di Napoli “L’Orientale,” 2010). 21  Tedros, “The Biblical Canon,” 98–​99. Perluigi Piovanelli, “Aksum and the Bible: Old Assumptions and New Perspectives,” Aethiopica 21 (2018), 11–​16. 22 Knibb, Translating the Bible, 19. Ullendorf presents at length the discussion over the ancient language that was used for the Ethiopic Bible. He underlines that one should consider a complex scenario with various Vorlagen. See Edward Ullendorff, Ethiopia and the Bible (London: Oxford University Press, 1967), 36–​63. The tradition according to which the Old Testament was translated from Hebrew, before the introduction of Christianity in Ethiopia, is related with the story of the Queen of the South who visited King Solomon (1 Kings 10). For the history of the translation of the Bible into Ge’ez, both from the perspective of Ethiopian tradition and the modern scholarly works, see Tedros, “The Biblical Canon,” 100–​106. 23 Farkasfalvy underlines that Revelation leads to inspiration and then to canon. Farkasfalvy, A Theology of the Christian Bible, 28. 24 Bruce Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament, Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987), 3–​5. 25  St. Athanasius: Select Works and Letters, Nicene and Post-​Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church (Michigan: Eerdmans, 1891), 551–​552. 26  Tadesse Tamrat, Church and State in Ethiopia (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972), 22. 27  Dibekulu Zewde, The 81 Holy Books and the Sources and Canons in the Ethiopia Orthodox Church (Addis Ababa: Commercial Printing Press, 1995), 135. 28 Roger Cowley, “The Biblical Canon of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church Today,” Ostkirchlichen Studien 23 (1974), 319–​321.

216   Daniel Assefa recensions,29 Clement,30 The Book of the Covenant in two sections31, and the Didascalia.32 It is the criterion of apostolicity that is advocated here. Dibekulu Zewde sustains that the apostolicity of Ethiopic Sinodos is not questioned by the EOTC, even though some canons betray ecclesiastical situations of later contexts in Church history.33 According to Beckwith34 and Brandt,35 the Ethiopic Sinodos and the Fǝtḥā Nagaśt36 derive from late Egyptian sources and therefore do not give an accurate image of the Ethiopic canon that existed immediately after the adoption of Christianity. The fact that 1 Enoch is quoted in the Epistle of Jude may strengthen the association with the Apostles. However, the issue becomes complicated when one reads Eusebius, who mentions the debate over canonical reckoning for books like the Epistle of Jude, James, 2 Peter, and 2 and 3 John.37 It will be well, at this point to classify the New Testament writings already referred to. We must, of course, put first the holy quartet of the gospels, followed by the Acts of the Apostles. The next place in the list goes to Paul’s epistles, and after them we must recognize the epistle called 1 John; likewise 1 Peter. To these may be added, if it is thought proper, the Revelation of John. . . . These are classed as Recognized Books. Those that are disputed, yet familiar to most, include the epistles known as James, Jude, and 2 Peter, and those called 2 and 3 John, the work either of the evangelist or of someone else with the same name.

Questioning the canonicity of Jude’s Epistle will, of course, have an impact on the status of 1 Enoch. Yet, it is not just the mere fact of referring to 1 Enoch that is decisive. Quotations from noncanonical material exist in books of the New Testament. When one looks at Jude’s use of 1 Enoch, it is rather the presentation of Enoch as prophet and the citation as prophecy that is more noteworthy. 29  See Alessandro Bausi (ed.), Il Senodos Etiopico: Canoni Pseudoapostolici: Canoni dopo l’Ascensione, Canoni di Simone Cananeo, Canoni Apostolici, Lettera di Pietro, CSCO 552 Aeth.101 (Leuven, 1995), 144–​ 145, 177–​178, 228–​232, 279–​282. 30  Cowley calls “the larger canon” the one that includes these eight books in the New Testament. See Roger Cowley, “The Identification of the Ethiopian Octateuch of Clement, and Its Relationship to the Other Christian Literature,” Ostkirchlichen Studien 27 (1980), 37–​45. 31 Robert Beylot, Le Testamentum Domini éthiopien (Leuven: Peeters, 1984). Louis Guerrier and Sylvain Grébaut, Le Testament en Galilée de Notre Seigneur Jésus Christ (Patrologia Orientalis IX,3 =​43; Turnhout: Brepols, 1982). 32  Thomas Platt, The Ethiopic Didascalia or the Ethiopic Version of the Apostolical Constitutions, Received in the Church of Abyssinia (London: 1834). John Harden, The Ethiopic Didascalia (London: Macmillan, 1920). For the complex relationship between the Didache, the Didascalia, the Apostolic Church Order, the Apostolic Constitutions, and the Testamentum Domini, see Paul Bradshaw, The Search for the Origins of Christian Worship (London: SPCK, 2002), 73–​97. 33  Dibekulu Zewde, The 81 Holy Books, 84–​85. 34 Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church, 494–​495. 35  Peter Brandt, “Geflecht aus 81 Büchern. Zur variantenreichen Gestalt des äthiopischen Bibelkanons,” Aethiopica 3 (2000), 81–​82. 36 Anonymous, Fǝtḥā Nagaśt (Law of the Kings) (Addis Ababa: Tesfa Gebreselassie Printing), 1999. Ignazio Guidi (ed. and trans.), Il “Fetha Nagast” o “Legislazione dei Re,” codice ecclesiastico e civile di Abissinia (Roma: Casa Editrice Italiana, 1899), 21–​22. Paulos Tzadua (ed. by Peter L. Strauss), The Fetha Nagast =​The Law of the Kings (Addis Ababa: Central Printing, 1968), 13. 37 Eusebius, The History of the Church from Christ to Constantine, 3.25, trans. G. A. Williamson (Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1965), 134.

the Ethiopian Orthodox Tawāhǝdo Church (EOTC)    217

Orthodoxy What can one say about the Orthodoxy of 1 Enoch, Jubilees, and 4 Ezra? Clement of Alexandria calls Ezra a prophet when referring to the text,38 just like the Epistle of Jude in the case of Enoch (Jude 14). Clement of Alexandria seems also to treat equally the book of Daniel and 1 Enoch.39 Similarly, Tertullian defends 1 Enoch’s canonicity and orthodoxy. Like the Epistle of Barnabas,40 he affirms that 1 Enoch is part of the Scriptures and refers to Christ.41 Luisier refers to phrases that seem to imply the acceptance of the book of Enoch and the Ascension of Isaiah.42 The popularity of the proper name Enoch in southern Egypt perhaps indicates the significance of 1 Enoch.43 Origen, who was originally more positive about the inspiration of 1 Enoch, would have influenced Athanasius of Alexandria for the exclusion of the book.44 Hence a change and an evolution among some ancient figures concerning some books peculiar to the EOTC biblical canon.

Antiquity The criterion of antiquity is applicable to 1 Enoch, Jubilees and 4 Ezra. Enoch, Moses and Ezra are all great ancient figures of the Old Testament. While modern exegesis labels 1 Enoch as pseudonymous, Tertullian and many church fathers believed that Enoch, the seventh generation from Adam, wrote the book of Enoch (cf. Jude). The same is true for the authority of the EOTC. Since they belong to Second Temple Judaism, there is a sense in which Jubilees, 1 Enoch, and 4 Ezra enjoy a reputation of antiquity among modern scholars. The fact that a large number of copies of 1 Enoch and Jubilees were discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls shows their significance for the Qumran community too.

Use The liturgy is one important indicator of the canonicity of the Scriptures. The Gospels and Pauline letters have always been essential from ancient Christianity up to today. And this is also the case in Ethiopia. While Book of the Covenant has inspired the Ethiopian Eucharistic “prayer of the Lord,” the Ethiopic Sinodos has influenced the Ethiopian Eucharistic prayer “of the Apostles” and the Law of the Kings or the Fǝtḥā Nagaśt.45

38  Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis One to Three, III, 16 (Washington: The Catholic University of America, 1991), 319. 39  Clement of Alexandria, Eclogae Prophaticae 2.1.1, ed. Otto Stählin (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1970). 40 Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, 245, 261. 41 Tertullian, De Cultu Feminarum 3, ed. Marie Turcan, Sources Chrétiennes 173 (Paris: Cerf, 1971), 57–​61. See also James Vanderkam, “1 Enoch, Enochic Motifs, and Enoch in Early Christian Literature,” in The Jewish Apocalyptic Heritage in Early Christianity, ed. James Vanderkam and William Adler (Assen: VanGorcum, 1966), 47–​54. 42  Philippe Luisier, “Il Canone Biblico Copto,” in Il Canone Biblico nelle Chiese Orientali (Roma: PIO), 2017, 58–​59. 43  Luisier, “Il Canone Biblico Copto,” 59–​60. 44  Luisier, “Il canone biblico copto,” 60. 45  Getachew Haile, Whiling with Ge‘ez Literature (in Amharic; Addis Ababa: Djadjaw, 2020), 52.

218   Daniel Assefa

Adaptability Did 1 Enoch, Jubilees, and 4 Ezra find a favorable environment that facilitated their special acceptance in Ethiopia? Nickelsburg suggests some reasons that might explain the recognition of 1 Enoch as canonical in Ethiopia’s Early Christianity. First, 1 Enoch must have been appreciated already during its translation in the Aksumite Empire. Second, there was congruence between the worldview of 1 Enoch and the one of Ancient Ethiopia. Third, the arguments that were against recognizing 1 Enoch as canonical were absent from Ethiopia.46 Stuckenbruck makes a distinction between the early position of 1 Enoch in Ethiopian Christianity and the book’s function in the later period. Like Nickelsburg, he proposes that 1 Enoch must have been received in Ethiopia before interest in the book had entirely disappeared in the ancient world, even though it was already being questioned in some circles.47

The Ancient Lists of the Ethiopian Biblical Canon In Ethiopia, inspired books are called “divine books.” Did the Ethiopian Church have a list of canonical books during the early periods of the translation of the Bible? Unfortunately, written material of the Aksumite period (fourth to tenth century) is scarce,48 and only copies of ancient texts are preserved. Beckwith suggests a number of arguments in order to designate books that could not have been included in the ancient Ethiopian canon. For example, “any book which was not reckoned canonical in the early Syrian church or in the early Egyptian church or among the Jews cannot have been in the ancient Ethiopian canon.”49 By this norm, Beckwith excludes at least Joseph ben Gorion’s history and the Ethiopic books of Maccabees, the Ascension of Isaiah, 4 Baruch and 4 Ezra, the Ethiopic Didascalia, the Ethiopic Clement or the Ethiopic Book of the Covenant, and also the Shepherd of Hermas.50 Yet, how do we know whether some of these books did not have the same status as the canonical ones? It seems we do not have enough data to affirm the noncanonical status of the aforementioned books.51 Beckwith also excludes from the ancient Ethiopian canon any other book that would have been recognized as canonical in order to meet the number eighty-​one. In other words, Beckwith affirms congruence between the ancient biblical canons of Syria, Egypt, and Ethiopia. 46  George W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch Chapters 1 ̶ 36; 81–​ 108 (Minneapolis: Fortress press, 2001), 104–​108. See also Loren Stuckenbruck, “The Book of Enoch: Its Reception in Second Temple Jewish and in Christian Tradition,” Early Christianity 4 (2013), 20–​24. 47  Stuckenbruck, “The Book of Enoch,” 22–​24. 48 Hablessilasse, Ancient and Medieval Ethiopia History to 1270, 232–​237. 49  Roger Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), 497. 50 Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church, 497–​498. 51  Tedros affirms that the Shepherd of Hermas used in the Ethiopian antiphonary must have had a canonical status. See Tedros, “The Biblical Canon,” 111.

the Ethiopian Orthodox Tawāhǝdo Church (EOTC)    219 However, it is important to ask whether Syria or Egypt had just one version or recension of the biblical canon. If it is not the case, the correspondence between the Ethiopian and the Egyptian or Syrian canon needs clarification. Which version of the Egyptian canon is compared with the Ethiopian one? Luisier, for instance, confirms the existence of local canons next to the official one in the Coptic Church. Neither the book of Enoch nor the book of Jubilees is included in the official canon. For Beckwith, books that were not translated before the fourteenth century did not figure in the ancient biblical canon. The period was marked by a revival of Ethiopic literature under Abuna Salāmā the translator, the Egyptian bishop of the fourteenth century (1348–​1388). This would include the Ethiopic Sinodos and the Ethiopic Didascalia (part of the Apostolic Constitutions), the Book of the Covenant, and the Testament of Our Lord Jesus Christ. However, to agree with Beckwith here, one needs to demonstrate the absence of Ethiopic translation of any of these books during the Aksumite period. Indeed, besides the Garimā Gospel,52 there seems to be evidence for an Ethiopic version of the Sinodos of the Aksumite period. Bausi refers to a recently discovered corpus of Ethiopic texts belonging to that period; and this “Aksumite Collection” indicates that there was list of inspired books that precedes the lists of the medieval period.53 On a similar note, Getachew Haile asserts that the Ethiopic Sinodos must have been translated during the Aksumite era since it was cited by the bishop Theofilos who lived during that period.54

The Ethiopian Canon in the Medieval Period Continuity or Innovation If the majority of the books that are part of the Ethiopian biblical canon were already accepted in early Christianity, we can speak of continuity. If a real change has come due to the involvement of Zarā Yā‘qob, we can speak of innovation. Although one may only speculate about the canonical status of some books in early Christianity, the situation is more certain during the Middle Ages as far as written references are concerned. Zarā Yā‘qob (1434–​1468) strongly defends the canonicity of the Ethiopic Sinodos, the Book of the Covenant, and the Didascalia on account of apostolicity. Wendt asserts that a new impetus has been given for the canonicity of 1 Enoch because of Zarā Yā‘qob.55

52 

Piovanelli, “Aksum and the Bible,” 9–​10. speaks here of canonico-​liturgical material translated from Greek that would belong to the Aksumite period. Alessandro Bausi, “La collezione aksumita canonico-​liturgical,” Adamantius 12 (2006). The manuscript contains texts relevant for the study of early Christianity, patristic literature and ecclesiastical historiography, old Christian liturgy, canon law, the history of Egypt in the fourth and fifth century, and the history of the councils. 54 Haile, Whiling with Ge‘ez Literature, 53. 55 Kurt Wendt, “Der Kampt um den Kanon Heiliger Schiften in der aethiopischen Kirche der Reformen des XV. Jharhunderts,” Journal of Semitic Studies 9 (1964), 107–​113. 53 Bausi

220   Daniel Assefa For Beckwith, Zarā Yā‘qob could reach the symbolic number eighty-​one by including a number of books that were not mentioned in the Sinodos. Now, the opposition to their inclusion may betray the existence of a tradition according to which these books were not canonical in ancient Christianity.56 Yet, is that the only explanation? Can we also not suppose that the opposition to the canonicity of these books came later on through Egyptian influence? Antiquity is still valid as a criterion for Jubilees, 1 Enoch, and 4 Ezra. Orthodoxy is also in force since Zarā Yā‘qob, and, as we shall see later, other Ethiopian texts used these books for Christological affirmations. Adaptability is also a valid criterion, given that these books enjoy appreciation by the medieval Ethiopian church. Zarā Yā‘qob was a theologian, strongly involved in ecclesiastical matters.57 The king’s arguments, found mainly in the Book of Nativity, are more doctrinal and liturgical. Thus, many verses of 1 Enoch are interpreted as prophecy about Christ, much like passages of Isaiah or Daniel. According to Beckwith, unlike in the case of 1 Enoch, there was no debate over the canonicity of Jubilees in medieval period; the book would have been recognized as canonical in Ethiopia since ancient times.58 However, there was indeed a debate over the canonicity of Jubilees in medieval Ethiopia.59 The Ethiopic books of Maccabees are entirely different from those of the Septuagint. Two ancient lists of the Sinodos seem to refer to the books of Maccabees in their mentioning of three books of Jubilees. The book of Joseph Ben Koryon, also called Zēna ’Ayǝhud (The History of the Jews) in Ge’ez, is equated with the book of Maccabees in the Fǝtḥā Nagaśt.60

More Than a Person Even if one admits innovation during the reign of Zarā Yā‘qob, it would be difficult to understand the impact of books like Jubilees and 1 Enoch without any precedence and without the involvement of the community. One does in fact find the use of these books by authors other than Zarā Yā‘qob. Thus, the Arganona Wudassie, written in the fifteenth century by the monk Giyorgis of Saglā, an important theologian, refers to 4 Ezra as one would refer to other biblical passages.61 The Book of the Mysteries of Heaven and Earth, fifteenth century AD, quotes extensively

56 Beckwith,

The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church, 496. the role played by Zarā Yā‘qob during the complex relationship between Church and State in Ethiopia, see Tamerat, Church and State in Ethiopia, 221–​267; Marie-​Laure Derat, Le domaine des rois éthiopiens (1270–​1527): Espace, pouvoir et monachisme (Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, 2003), 153–​206. 58 Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church, 499. 59 Haile, Whiling with Ge‘ez Literature, 45–​47. Leslie Baynes, “Enoch and Jubilees in the Canon of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church,” in A Teacher for All Generations: Essays in Honor of James Vanderkam, Volume Two (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 807–​818. 60  This book was translated in the fifteenth century and does not appear in the printed Bibles of the EOTC in Amharic. See Haile, Whiling with Ge‘ez Literature, 45–​47. 61  Giyorgis of Saglā, The ̓Argānona Wudāsse, ed. P. Leander (Leipzig: Drugulin, 1922), 7. 57  For

the Ethiopian Orthodox Tawāhǝdo Church (EOTC)    221 from 1 Enoch.62 Early homilies in honor of archangels also draw heavily from 1 Enoch. The praises of their effigies are full of quotations and allusions to 1 Enoch. Haileyesus Alebachew has studied the usage of 1 Enoch in various hymns, besides in a number of medieval texts of theology.63 Stuckenbruck and Erho assert signs of liturgical use of 1 Enoch based on the evidence of an old manuscript of Ethiopian antiphonary (Dǝgwā).64 It is thus difficult to give Zarā Yā‘qob sole responsibility for the use and authority of the aforementioned books. According to Stuckenbruck, the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries indicate an increase in the importance of 1 Enoch in the manuscripts, which he associates with the legacy of Zarā Yā‘qob.65 Stuckenbruck affirms also that looking at the place of 1 Enoch in medieval manuscripts can be suggestive but not conclusive. In some cases the book of Enoch appears alone, making one whole manuscript. In some other cases, it is with others of the Pentateuch. In other cases, it is located with prophetic books.66

The Ethiopian Canon in the Twentieth and the Twenty-​First Centuries The Paradox of the Peculiar Books The books that are extant only in the EOTC’s biblical canon are not all printed in modern Bibles in Amharic. Dibekulu Zewde discusses the peculiarity of ten books among the Ethiopian biblical canon: (1) Suzanna, (2) the prayers of the three children, (3) the Rest of Daniel, (4) the Book of Esther, (5) the Rest of Jeremiah, (6) The Prayers of Manasseh, (7) Ezra Sutuel =​4 Ezra, (8) 2 Ezra, (9) the book of Jubilees and Enoch, (10) the 3 books of Maccabees.67 It must be underlined that no printed Bible in Ge’ez or classical Ethiopic has the books of the Old Testament in one volume. The Octateuch is usually printed alone. The same is true for the prophetic books. The criteria of canonicity presented earlier are still valid in the contemporary period, including for the peculiar books. There is some difference between official documents and the printed Bibles of the EOTC. Moreover, the additional eight books of the New Testament, up until now, have never been printed in modern Bibles. In some official documents, they are called books of Church Order in contrast to “divine” books, an appellation reserved for the other canonical books.

62  “Le livre d’Hénoch commenté par le livre des mystères du Ciel et de la Terre ,” in Les églises d’Ethiopie: Cultures et échanges culturels; Actes du colloque de l’Institut Supérieur d’Etudes œcuméniques du 21–​22 Octobre 2012 à Paris, ed. J.-​N. Pérès and Ursula Schattner-​Rieser, JECS 64 (Leuven: Peeters), 29–​39. 63  Haileyesus Alebachew, The Role of the Book of Ethiopic Enoch in the Production of Medieval Ge’ez Texts: Identification, Explanation and Analysis with Translation (Unpublished Thesis; Addis Ababa University; Addis Ababa), 2018. 64  Stuckenbruck, “The Book of Enoch,” 30–​39. Stuckenbruck gives important references to Ethiopic literature where the different sections of 1 Enoch are used. 65  Stuckenbruck, “The Book of Enoch,” 39. 66  Stuckenbruck, “The Book of Enoch,” 39. 67  Dibekulu Zewde, The 81 Holy Books and the sources and Canons, 185–​212.

222   Daniel Assefa The Ge’ez Old Testament published in three volumes by Māhǝbara Hāwāryāt in Asmara (1963) is based on the manuscript IES 0077, one witness of the Textus Receptus. The book of Jubilees is published after the book of Ruth, forming thus an Enneateuch. As for 1 Enoch, it is published together with the books of Kings. Publishing parts of the Bible in several volumes seems to follow the tradition of manuscripts. So far, only the versions in modern languages like Amharic contain all the books in one volume. In Ge’ez, the Gospels are in one volume for liturgical service. It is that volume which is raised or lifted up during procession, kissed by celebrants, and read by the priest during the liturgical service. As there are different lists, one does not find equivalence between the books in printed Bibles and the lists of canonical books. Thus a publication of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church in 1970, entitled The Church of Ethiopia: A Panorama of History and Spiritual Life reads: The Ethiopic Bible contains 81 Books; 46 of these comprise the Old Testament and 35 are found in the New Testament.68

Another official69 book published in 1996 reads: 81 are the Old Testament and New Testament books which have been accepted as canonical books of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahido Church.

However, a distinction is made between the twenty-​seven books of the New Testament and the eight books that are called “Books of Church Order.” Interestingly, the Orthodox Bible published in 1988 includes eighty-​five books.70 The large number is reached even without counting the eight additional books of the New Testament. It should be remembered here that the several short chapters have been considered as separate books. In 2007, the EOTC published a Bible in Amharic in honor of the Ethiopian millennium and it contained the following books: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Jubilees, Enoch, Ezra, Nehemiah, 1 Ezra Apocalypse (Ezra Sutu’el), 2 Ezra, Tobit, Judith, Esther, 1–​3 Maccabees (entirely different from those found in the Septuagint), Job, Psalms, Messale (Proverbs 1–​24) and Tägsas (Proverbs 25–​31), Wisdom, Qohelet, Song of Songs, Sirach, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Lamentations, Rest of Jeremiah, Rest of Baruch, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Amos, Micah, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi.

Accordingly, the number of the Old Testament books is fifty-​four. The New Testament contains the twenty-​ seven books known by the Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant churches. We reach thus eighty-​one books, again, without the eight books that were added to the twenty-​seven books of the New Testament.

68  Adamu Amare and Belaynesh Mikael, “The Role of the Church in Literature and Art,” in The Church of Ethiopia: A Panorama of History and Spiritual Life (Addis Ababa: United Printers, 1970), 74. 69 Anonymous, The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church Faith: Order of Worship and Ecumenical Relations (Addis Ababa: Tensae, 1996), 45–​47. 70  This publication with eighty-​five books is defended by the bishop Melchisedeq; see Melchisedeq, The Faith and the Teaching of the EOTC (in Amharic; Addis Ababa: Alem Press, 2002), 56–​64.

the Ethiopian Orthodox Tawāhǝdo Church (EOTC)    223

Influence of the Peculiar Books According to Isaac Ephraim, 1 Enoch has had a great influence on Ethiopian Christianity and theology.71 There is a sense in which the influence of 1 Enoch is particularly important and visible in Ethiopia. One example is the veneration of the archangel Uriel, a significant character in 1 Enoch that adds more distinctive features to the Ethiopian Church. Also, in churches dedicated to the Archangel Uriel, one also finds various texts narrating deeds and miracles. The archangel is believed to have sprinkled blood in various regions of Ethiopia, taken from the drops of the Cross of Jesus. It would however be important to nuance the degree of influence. Does 1 Enoch have more influence than the Psalms or the Book of Isaiah in Ethiopian Christianity? Does the EOTC read 1 Enoch, Jubilees, and 4 Ezra in the light of the Christian creed or the other way round? To see that the Gospels and the Pauline literature are the most important books of the EOTC’s liturgy and doctrine, it is enough to look at the lectionary and books of prayer and teaching. The five “pillars of Mystery” in the EOTC are the Holy Trinity, the Incarnation, Baptism, the Eucharist, and the Resurrection of the dead.72 With all the peculiar emphasis on creation, the liturgical year is Christocentric. The fact that books like 1 Enoch, Jubilees, and Ezra are included in the EOTC does not mean that the canonical books accepted by the majority of churches are neglected. On the contrary, the Gospels, the Pauline Epistles, the Acts of the Apostles, and the Catholic letters enjoy special importance. They are in fact the only material regularly read in each Eucharistic celebration. The first reading is taken from the Epistles of Saint Paul, to be followed by a reading from the seven Catholic letters, and then by a reading from the Acts of the Apostles. The liturgy of the Word culminates with the reading from the Gospel. Perhaps it is not appropriate to ask whether the EOTC is influenced by 1 Enoch, Jubilees, or 4 Ezra. It is rather better to ask how these books are read by the EOTC. If these books are treated like Genesis, Exodus, Isaiah, and Daniel, the peculiarity does not go outside the framework of Christian theology. Would one put the same question for the book of Isaiah, if the latter were included in one tradition and absent in most other traditions? Are not the psalms more influential and the most quoted book in the New Testament?

Adaptability Hermeneutics is not to be separated from the biblical text in the Ethiopian context. The twentieth century has seen the publication of commentaries for the majority of the books of the Ethiopic Bible. The commentaries of 1 Enoch and Jubilees have been published in the 71  Ephraim Isaac, “1 Ethiopic Apocalypse of Enoch,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Vol. 1, ed. James Charlesworth (London: Darton, Longman & Todd), 8–​10. See also Ephraim Isaac, The Ethiopian Orthodox Täwahïdo Church (Trenton: The Red Sea Press), 65–​66. Isaac’s emphasis on the influence of 1 Enoch on Ethiopian Christianity has been challenged by Bruk Ayele, 1 Enoch as Christian Scripture: A Study in the Reception and Appropriation of 1 Enoch in Jude and the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahǝdo Canon (Eugene: Pickwick, 2020), 19–​22. 72 Anonymous, The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, 24–​35. Most of the quotations in these pages are taken from the New Testament.

224   Daniel Assefa twenty-​first century. In addition, there are a number of books that are given a special status as deriving from the biblical texts.73 This shows that adaptability and interpretation mattered a lot in the acceptance of these books in the EOTC. After all, is not the Song of Songs included in the canon because of its interpretation as an allegory of divine love to his people or Christ’s love for the Church?74 The four Gospels are so important that in a cycle of four years, each year is dedicated to one evangelist. When one wishes “happy new year,” one says, “Good that the Lord made you pass from the year of Matthew to the year of Mark.” The place of the psalms seems even unique, as they are practically omnipresent in ecclesiastical prayers. Carried as a faithful companion by teenagers in several regions of the country, they are recited regularly both by the clergy and a large amount of the laity. The Psalms of David have even generated the so-​called Psalms of Christ, in which each psalm is “rewritten” or rather recomposed in Ge’ez, with Ethiopian rhymes, with Christian keys. The book exists in various recensions. The psalters are among the most common books available in the shops around the Orthodox Churches. Each psalter also contains hymns taken from the Old Testament, as well as the prayers of Manasseh and the Song of Songs. Books are derived or inspired by the Sacred Scriptures, Awaled are given authority and are used in the liturgy and devotional prayers. This includes the antiphonary, the life of the saints, and homilies in honor of archangels, martyrs, and saints.75 James Barr makes an interesting remark about the way Christians ask questions depending on whether they accept a book as Canonical or not:76 To the average Protestant Christian the book of Daniel is part of his church setting; he may not understand it, he may not even have read it, but he recognizes it as part of the context which he acknowledges, and it belongs in the same circle with the other books of which he knows, with Genesis, with Isaiah, with the Gospels. But if he looks at Enoch he does not feel this way at all: the remoteness, the lack of power to communicate, the distance in another world and another culture, immediately strike him. But there is no such feeling about Enoch in the Ethiopian church, because it has long been canonical there. Our western canon includes Chronicles, which is a rewrite of Samuel-​Kings, and we accept the coexistence of both without a thought; but it does not include Jubilees, which is a rewrite of Genesis–​Exodus, and Jubilees is to us a remote and immensely strange universe. Thus, reading Genesis or Isaiah, the western Christian may probably ask himself “what is this saying to me today?,” but on reading Enoch or Jubilees he is not likely even to ask the question. But this is not because of the intrinsic merits or demerits of the books: it is because the books are canonical and uncanonical respectively.

Conclusion There have always been various lists of inspired books, in early Christianity and in medieval period not only among various ancient important Christian communities but also within 73 

Tedros, “The Biblical Canon,” 101–​102, 109–​110. is interesting to note that the Song of Songs is the most copied book in the EOTC. Besides its place among the wisdom books, it is included in each breviary after the Psalter and other prayers. 75  Tedros, “The Biblical Canon,” 109–​112. 76   James Barr, Holy Scripture: Canon, Authority, Criticism (Oxford: Clarendon, 1983), 44. 74  It

the Ethiopian Orthodox Tawāhǝdo Church (EOTC)    225 given communities. The number eighty-​one does not explain everything about the large number of canonical books in Ethiopia. Is it not significant that one can even reach more that eighty-​five books as it is in the printed edition of 1988? This shows two things: First, the way one counts matters very much. Second, more than that, it shows that the EOTC approach of the biblical canon is the most open one. By that it does not mean that it is including new books without discrimination. It rather means that, though selective, it has been the most open in accepting books. In any case, one should consider the whole corpus of the biblical canon. The insistence on the peculiar books betrays the vantage point from which one examines the biblical canon of the EOTC. The best approach would be to include the Ethiopian perspective and appreciate the journey taken by the EOTC whereby the written text and the oral tradition coexist and nourish each other. The Ethiopian Church has its own trajectory, its own challenges, and its contact with others ecclesiastical communities. Inspiration is not limited to the written text or the eighty-​one books. In the Church, during solemn vespers, new poems, inspired by the Bible, along the psalms and other biblical verses, are regularly improvised and sung. Surely, these new poems composed in the Church are not part of the Bible. Yet, the choir does not think that the words are not inspired. It is a combination of various criteria that explains the EOTC’s peculiarity as far as the canon is concerned. Apostolicity, orthodoxy, antiquity, and use are valid criteria in Ethiopia as they were in other ancient churches. Adaptability, not only in innovation but also in preserving features of early Christianity, explains well the peculiarity of the EOTC.

Bibliography Anke, Wanger. The Biblical Canon of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahdo Church, MA thesis, 2011, Euclid University, Ethiopia. Bausi, A. “La collezione aksumita canonico-​liturgical.” Adamantius 12 (2006), 43–​70. Bausi, A. “The Aksumite Background of the Ethiopic ‘Corpus Canonum.’” In Proceedings of the XVth International Conference of Ethiopian Studies. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2006. Baynes, L. “Enoch and Jubilees in the Canon of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.” In A Teacher for All Generations: Essays in Honor of James C. VanderKam, 2 vols., edited by E.F. Mason. JSJ Supp 153. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2011. II:799–​818. Beckwith, R. The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985. Brandt, P. “Geflecht aus 81 Büchern. Zur variantenreichen Gestalt des äthiopischen Bibelkanons.” Aethiopica 3 (2000), 79–​115. Bruk, A. Asale. “The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church Canon of the Scriptures: Neither Open nor Closed.” The Bible Translator 67.2 (2016), 202–​222. Bruk, A. 1 Enoch as Christian Scripture: A Study in the Reception and Appropriation of 1 Enoch in Jude and the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahǝdo Canon. Eugene: Pickwick, 2020. Cowley, R.W. “The Biblical Canon of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church Today.” Ostkirchliche Studien 23 (1974), 318–​323. Knibb, M. Translating the Bible: The Ethiopic Version of the Old Testament. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Metzger, B. The Canon of the New Testament, Its Origin, Development, and Significance. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987.

226   Daniel Assefa Mikre-​Selassie, G. “The Bible and Its Canon in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.” The Bible Translator 44 (1993), 111–​123. Piovanelli, P. “Aksum and the Bible: Old Assumptions and New Perspectives.” Aethiopica 21 (2018), 7–​27. Tedros, A. “The Biblical Canon of the Orthodoks Täwaḥədo Church of Ethiopia and Eritrea.” In Il Canone Biblico Nelle Chiese Orientali: Atti del simposio Pontifico Istituto Orientale, Roma 23 marzo 2010. Roma: Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 2017, 95–​122. Ullendorf, E. Ethiopia and the Bible. London: Oxford University Press, 1967. Wendt, K. “Der Kampt um den Kanon Heiliger Schiften in der aethiopischen Kirche der Reformen des XV. Jharhunderts.” Journal of Semitic Studies 9 (1964), 107–​113. Zewde, Dibekulu. 81 Kidusat Metsaheftena Minchoch-​Kenonat (The 81 Holy Books and the Sources—​Canons). Addis Ababa: Commercial Printing Enterprise, 1995.

Pa rt I I I

SCRIPTURE WITHIN T R A DI T ION

Chapter 14

Traditi on

Generated by or Generating Scripture? Silviu N. Bunta Considerations of Approach More often than not, modern and postmodern Orthodox literature1 engages the question in the title of this chapter (and, it seems, all other Scripture-​Tradition questions) through a doctrinal lens, a lens concerned primarily with concepts and definitions.2 This dogmatist approach still dominates the Orthodox scholarly mindset to such an extent that, although otherwise relegated to a field of its own, biblical scholarship will nevertheless adopt it as soon as it switches to such “doctrinal” questions. The number of publications dedicated to the relation between Scripture and Tradition increases rapidly, in both scholarly and more popular sources.3 A cursory look at this growing body of texts will give the clear impression that, even as it warns without exception against any stultified and past-​looking understandings of Tradition, it privileges concepts and categories. The following statement is emblematic: From an Orthodox perspective, scripture, tradition and Church are viewed as a comprehensive unity with interdependent parts. Scripture finds its centre in the mystery of the eternal

1  The awareness that texts rarely reflect the informal life of the vast majority of the Orthodox through the ages is necessary. 2  For a recent cogent critique of this tendency in (post)modern theology, see John Behr, John the Theologian and His Paschal Gospel (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019), 1–​29. 3  Among the more influential and more recent publications on the topic are John A. McGuckin, The Orthodox Church (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2008), 90–​119; Theodore Stylianopoulos, “Scripture and Tradition in the Church,” in E. Theokritoff and M. Cunningham, eds., The Cambridge Companion to Orthodox Christian Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 21–​34; Sergius Bulgakov, The Orthodox Church (Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1988), 9–​35; Dumitru Stăniloae, Le génie de l’Orthodoxie (Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1985), 75–​144; Vladimir Lossky, In the Image and Likeness of God (Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1974), 141–​168; Fr. Georges Florovsky, Bible, Church, Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox View (Belmont: Nordland Publishing Company, 1972), esp. 37–​92.

230   Silviu N. Bunta Christ, veiled in the Old Testament and revealed in the New. Tradition in its theological substance is defined by the gospel, the sum of scripture’s saving message. . . . The Church itself, the ongoing living community of God’s people, far from being a mere historical appendage, is the body of Christ and the temple of the Holy Spirit, constitutive of revelation. As such, the Church forms the very ground from which scripture and tradition emerge and together, in turn, make up a coherent source of revelation, the supreme norm for the life of the Church.4

This chapter approaches the topic from a different perspective. This avoidance is intentional, for two reasons. First, it appears ever more clearly that such a conceptual approach leads only to greater unclarity and even a fragmentation of conclusion. These outcomes are themselves indications that the approach itself looks at Scripture and Tradition through lenses that are foreign to both. Second and more fundamentally, such an approach has a backward direction: Scripture and Tradition—​and this point is valid regardless of how one understands “Tradition”—​are read from the vantage point of the (post)modern researcher and not from their own. The ancient text, rather than being a present (which at once both embodies the past and looks to the future), is a past leading to the researcher’s present.5 Scripture and Tradition serve the modern “theologian” for evidentiary and explanatory purposes and are turned into “sources” of Orthodox “doctrine,” crutches of the contemporary need for confirmation and certainty.6 The disconnect between this approach and its objects happens not in the sense that the approach misses the self-​definitions of Scripture and Tradition. The disconnect is rather much more profound, because such formalism and self-​definitions do not exist in Scripture and Tradition. A conceptualist approach to them defines that which is not acquiescing to definition, and it seeks to formalize and systematize that which defies formalization and systematization. And this—​it seems to me—​is the central issue: to approach Scripture and Tradition on their own terms. Therefore, any answer one may hope for requires the abandonment of the question and method themselves. This chapter is an exercise in such abandonment. Only once one realizes that this approach dissolves the Scriptures and Tradition into “sources” in need of method and meaning, and that this line of inquiry is itself an outside question, can one begin to look at whatever is there in earnest. From this new vantage point, from within, the approach can no longer be definitional and categorical, it cannot be launched on the questions “what is Scripture?” or “what is Tradition?” Neither can it pursue 4  Stylianopoulos, “Scripture and Tradition in the Church,” 21. See similar statements in McGuckin, The Orthodox Church, 90; Florovsky, Bible, Church, Tradition, 46; Bulgakov, The Orthodox Church, 10. 5  One can only assume that this directionality of Tradition is the product of such non-​ Orthodox concepts as “salvation history” and “development of doctrine.” The first concept sees history as a sequence of events that lead to a consummate moment: the incarnation in the time of the Old Testament, and the eschaton in the time of the New. The second concept is bound to hold theology as always peaking in the epistemological apogee of the present time, the presupposition at work being that faith—​as something that is wholesome, tenable, and transferable—​ is epistemological. Even Florovsky, who otherwise criticizes such approaches of the past (Bible, Church, Tradition, 80), ends up reducing tradition to an interpretive corpus that functions as “an insight into the meaning and impact of the revelatory events,” i.e., the Scriptures (ibid., 80). 6  It is important to point out that ironically the dogmatist approach is the very method and mindset of the “scholasticism” the neopatristic synthesis wanted to discard. The synthesis has retained the positive rationalism and philosophical intellectualism of that which it wanted to replace.

Tradition   231 the method that interprets the Scriptures or the theological premises that unlock Tradition. Rather the only possible question, the only inside question, is “How do the Scriptures and Tradition want to be read?” To meet Scripture and Tradition on their own terms is to read them with the reading they themselves elicit and in the language in which they present themselves. Definitions, categories, and methodological concerns have to be abandoned for self-​descriptions and for a language that is deeply symbolic. The inability of modern Orthodox scholarship to read the Scriptures on their own terms points to an even greater problem. Due, among other reasons, to a justified suspicion and aversion toward historical criticism,7 with very few exceptions Orthodox scholarship appears entirely unable to trust Scripture in and of itself. Scripture, as the common warning goes, can only be handled through and with Tradition—​the underlying assumption being that Tradition is mostly (if not wholly) external to it. As much as such attitudes express a warranted mindfulness of Church, they are still beholden to the inability to conceive “the faith” before the essential moments in “the biography of Christ,” to echo Fr. John Behr’s criticism of “salvation history,”8 and maybe even before Acts 2. At the heart of the issue then is how one reads the Old Testament.9 The fundamental question—​and this question places the issue in the sharpest focus—​is: “Is the Old Testament pre-​Tradition?” The statement on Scripture and Tradition provided previously would be forced to answer in the positive. Doubtlessly the positive answer would come with qualifications, but for all practical purposes this response and any such instincts in the Orthodox mindset place the Old Testament (the largest part of the Scriptures!) in inferiority to the “fathers of the Church,”10 hold it in an awkward irrelevance to the faith, and construe it as incomplete and even void of sense in and of itself. Certainly, from the vantage point of the Orthodox liturgy and the fathers themselves the Old Testament appears very differently than from this dogmatist standing.11 Hymnography is filled with dialogues between Christ and the patriarchs or prophets; iconography commemorates Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob alongside the apostles and the great teachers of the Church; the enveloping of the holy table with incense smoke turns it perceptibly into Mount Sinai; gestures of both clergy and laity go back to the Jerusalem Temple. Nowhere in the liturgy—​the expressed life of the Church—​are the Old Testament saints checked against

7  Michael Legaspi’s argument for the incompatibility of historical criticism to traditional modes of interpretation is convincing (The Death of Scripture and the Rise of Biblical Studies [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011]). 8  John the Theologian, 1–​30. Insightful as his criticism of salvation history is, even Behr misses much of Christ in the Old Testament. The fact that he does not present the theophanies as christophanies is a symptom of this shortcoming, but the problem is deeper: his solution to salvation history is still history, a history that begins with the moment of the Cross. The Cross permeates time forward and backward, but only the forward permeation is physical, while the backward is literary, imbuing the Old Testament with a sort of semantic fecundity. This conclusion hides under careful wording. It leaves the prophets with precisely the same disembodied expectation of Christ as the typology that Behr rightly wishes to discard. 9  For an overarching view of the place of the Old Testament in Orthodoxy, see Eugen J. Pentiuc, The Old Testament in Eastern Orthodox Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011). 10  The fact that many Orthodox books on a plethora of subjects refer to the Old Testament only in the most superficial ways, while being replete with quotes from the fathers, is symptomatic of this inferiority. 11  Bogdan Bucur’s Scripture Re-​envisioned (Leiden: Brill, 2019) is a very useful entry point into the liturgical and patristic appropriation of the Old Testament.

232   Silviu N. Bunta “the fathers.” On the contrary, the Old Testament saints stand on their own, or rather they too sit at Christ’s feet and speak of him in a symphony with all the other saints. If anything, even as Tradition consistently sees all the saints as of the same symphonic faith, the fathers themselves look at the Old Testament writers as their teachers, a sort of fathers of the fathers. Moreover, to my knowledge nowhere do the pupil fathers imagine their teachers as being incomplete or inaccurate.12 Therefore, Scripture “on its own terms”—​particularly the Old Testament—​is not done on the questions of historical criticism.13 On the contrary, this is the Scripture of the fathers themselves and it can be done, and indeed should be done on the questions of the fathers themselves. As an increasing body of scholarship elucidates, the earliest Christian hermeneutics was driven by two related and overarching concerns: referent and usefulness.14 It is only later on and mostly in the west that some biblical hermeneutics became driven by epistemology and then by method. In other words, the ancient questions of “What is this text saying about me?” and “How is it useful to me?”15 have been discarded for the questions “How does this read?” and respectively “What is the method to understand this?” Therefore, to approach Scripture on its own terms—​which is the same as to approach it as the fathers did—​is to ask questions that are not method-​based and objective, but rather referent-​based and subjective. These questions recover the proper direction between text and listener: The listener is no longer targeting the text, but the listener offers himself up as the target of the text.16 And fundamentally this is the “Scripture on its own terms”: not the Scripture as the listener approaches it, but the Scripture as it approaches the listener. In order to accomplish this approach in such ways as to clarify the topic of this chapter, in the second part I will proceed with close analyses of three scriptural texts for

12 To

state the obvious, to Christ himself and to many generations of early Christians the “Old Testament” was simply “the Scriptures.” When the New Testament congeals, it does so not as a correction or completion of the Old, but as an explication (“fulfillment”) of it. The fathers themselves find that the Gospel is already told in the Old. The Nicene-​Constantinopolitan creed inscribes this reality in the memory of the Church, when, quoting 1 Cor 15:4, it refers to the Old as “the Scriptures” in the phrase “on the third day according to the Scriptures” (cf. also Luke 24:46). 13  This is not to say that the findings of historical criticism ought to be ignored or that one cannot learn anything from these findings. 14 See the now classic Frances Young, Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture (New York, NY: Cambridge University, 1997), esp. 119–​138, on the issue of referent, and, on the question of usefulness, the cogent remarks in Manlio Simonetti, Lettera e/​o allegoria: Un contributo alla storia dell’esegesi patristica (Rome: Institutum Patristicum “Augustinianum,” 1985), 79–​80; McGuckin, The Orthodox Church, 109–​110. 15  The ancient interpreters asked their two questions only because their universal assumption was that the text was written to them, for them, and about them, and received its ultimate fulfillment in them. 16  A major point in this line of research is marked by the publication of Jon D. Levenson’s Sinai and Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1985). Unfortunately even today, decades after the publication of this wonderful book, Orthodox academic theology—​beholden as it is to placing the Scriptures in the service of systematics—​still has not heeded the justified criticism of Levenson that Christians should look at the Old Testament as it is, as Tradition. I use “listener” instead of “reader” in this chapter because until recently listening has been the manner in which the vast majority of people approached the text, and certainly it was the ancient way. Moreover, it remains the way inscribed in Orthodox liturgy.

Tradition   233 their self-​description and self-​hermeneutics. They are all on a common theme which has already been noted in the Orthodox worship: Sinai. The third and final part of this chapter will use this language like tesserae for the self-​portrait of Tradition and Scripture.

The Texts 4 Kings 23:3 (MT 2 Kings 23:3) My first text of choice is 4 Kings 23:3 (MT 2 Kings 23:3). Here it is in my more literal translation from Hebrew, although it does not differ from the Septuagint in any particular feature important to this investigation: The king stood by the pillar and cut the covenant before the Lord—​to walk after the Lord and to keep his commandments and his testimonies and his laws with all heart and all soul, to carry out the words of this covenant which were inscribed upon this scroll. And all the people stood in the covenant.17

In current biblical scholarship the covenant vocabulary, more than any other, is constantly under suspicion of being legalistic and contractual and of being very ancient. These suspicions are precisely the reasons for which I picked this text out of the many others which would have served my analysis. The most impressive feature of this early covenant text lies in the equivalent use of the definite article and of the demonstrative pronoun “this.” As Hindy Najman observed, Deuteronomic texts do not use such terms [“the” and “this”] from the point of view of a specified speaker—​say, of Moses. Rather, they use such terms within anonymous third person descriptions of the speech and actions of Moses. That is to say, they use such terms from the point of the view of the text’s reader or listener. This is of great importance, for it follows that the unity of Torah, in the special sense of the Deuteronomist, is secured through the presence of tradition to those who read or hear the words of Torah.18

I would take Najman’s argument further and suggest that this language makes the covenant a manner of life which, first, the Deuteronomist claims as his own and which, second, he also expects to be the life of his listeners. Furthermore, such language serves the obvious function of a self-​destruct safety feature, because it is precisely this manner of writing that makes the entire text collapse, become nonsensical, in the hands of another life, or—​to speak from our vantage point—​in the hands of a disjointed, past-​looking approach. In light of this, Moses’s emphatic negative in Deut 5:3 is best understood not as a polemic against the Abrahamic covenant, as the current scholarship sees it, but more precisely as a

17 

This and all ensuing translations are my own, unless noted otherwise. Najman, Seconding Sinai: The Development of Mosaic Discourse in Second Temple Judaism (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 31–​32 (her emphasis). 18  Hindy

234   Silviu N. Bunta warning against any lifeless, static understandings of the covenant of the Lord with Israel. “Beyond the Jordan” (Deut 1:1) Moses shouts to Israel the following words: It was not with our fathers that the Lord cut this covenant, but with us, we these here today, all of us living.

The Masoretic text—​fragmentarily attested at Qumran19—​is even more striking than the Septuagint because it uses the personal pronoun three times (as opposed to only twice in the LXX) and once even accompanied by the demonstrative pronoun (missing in LXX): “us, we these here today, all of us living.” Yet, despite this extraordinary emphasis on the denial “not with our fathers,” Deut 1:35–​40 makes it abundantly clear that the people whom Moses is addressing here were not at Sinai, but rather the people at Sinai were their fathers. All these peculiarities invest the shout with a lot of meaning. They point to a self-​understanding in which tradition secures the covenant, rather than the covenant the tradition. The covenant so secured by tradition is always alive and current, never a past event. It is passed down from generation to generation as perpetually fresh. In the shout itself the experience of Sinai is taken away from the ones who were at Sinai and have died, and is given to their living descendants. Moreover, the transmission of the living covenant does not stop with this generation. In the acts of listening and reading the shout with its striking use of personal and demonstrative pronouns and of the adverbial “today,” the listener is to realize that the truthfulness of the shout is relinquished by Moses and the Israel who heard it to the writer, because it is only from the writer’s vantage point that Moses and Israel are “beyond the Jordan,” and furthermore that in turn it is relinquished by the writer to the listener himself, just as it was relinquished in the first place by “the fathers”—​those at Sinai—​to their descendants who heard the shout. The text expects the living listener to claim the shout as his own and to re-​ enliven the covenant in himself, and thus the shout is meant to subsume both the writer and Moses—​together with the people at Sinai and their children—​into the listener’s inherited identity, identity which at once both enacts and detextualizes the shout. Deut 5:3 is a text that sets itself up for being detextualized and enlivened in the listener, or rather a text that expects a listener who would give it life by embodying it and thus detextualizing or obliterating it. The text acts only as an intermediary between different actuations of the same live event, in the circular trajectory event-​text-​event. The Sinai tradition, even inscribed in a text, presents itself as always ultimately fulfilled beyond text, in the present listener. Moreover, in this very act of giving life to the text the listener surrenders his/​her own life. The one who writes, that which is written, the one who is talked about, and the one who listens and reads, all these collapse into one identity; the reading is at once both the death of the text and the death of the listener, because it is the end of selves.

Hebrews 8–​11 In tradition, this understanding of covenant as a certain life and of Tradition as the inheritance of this life or identity (and the two understandings travel together in later 19  See

Eugene Ulrich, ed., The Biblical Qumran Scrolls: Transcriptions and Textual Variants (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 183.

Tradition   235 Jewish texts—​the pseudepigrapha, Qumran, Philo, etc.) does not stop with the Old Testament. On the contrary, the New does not break away from the inherited covenant, but it rather sees itself in continuity to it. My second text of choice, too long to analyze in detail, is Hebrews 8–​11. What will strike the listener of these chapters is that they refer to their inherited tradition, the “old” covenant, in the same manner in which the Deuteronomist does. For example, both Hebrews 8:10 and 10:16 quote the same Jer 38:33 (MT 31:33), a verse in which the new covenant is called “this covenant” (“this [is] is the covenant”). Moreover, the second quote is set up in 10:15 by “the Holy Spirit bears witness to us too.” The semantic choreography of the demonstrative pronoun, the definite article, the conjunction καί, and the striking use of the present tense is very complex. The language expects the readers/​listeners of Hebrews to share the location and identity of the author of the epistle, which is also revealed as none other than the location and identity of Jeremiah. Once the listener is with the apostle and Jeremiah, as merging into one communal identity, he/​she discovers the whole reading process to have had the opposite direction: the listener is with Jeremiah through the author of Hebrews only because Jeremiah is with both of them in the first place: “this covenant” belongs first to Jeremiah. Equally impressive and suggestive of the endurance of Tradition as inherited life is the fact that Hebrews also uses the same demonstrative pronoun in relation to the realities of the Jerusalem Temple (especially if the epistle was written after the destruction of the Temple, as seems to be the case). “This/​these” is/​are in turn: everything of the temple in 9:6, the rituals twice in 9:23, and the sacrifices in 10:3. Even more significantly, in 7:1 Melchizedek is “this Melchizedek,” in 11:13 the patriarchs are “these all,” and in 11:39 all the witnesses of faith are “all these.” Yet, arguably the most striking use of the demonstrative pronoun is for Christ, who is referred to simply as “this [one]” in 8:3 and 10:12. The imagery that forms from all these elements is one in which not only are the “old” texts and “old” realities not superseded in the “new” but also the author of Hebrews claims for himself, and expects his listeners to function in, the space or life of these realities, with familiarity. The author of Hebrews writes in such ways that, in order for the listeners to even see how the old covenant is transitioned into a new one, from the very beginning of this realization or rather as an essential condition for this transition to take place, the listeners have to fully participate or be integrated into the identity inherited from of old. Therefore, the transition to the new is not a departure from the old (cf. Heb 8:13), but a recalibration of it in the light of Christ. The new covenant is written from within the old, not after it and not against it. Heb 12:18–​23, with its warning that the community has not come forth to Sinai, seems to speak against such conclusions. I have argued elsewhere that the setting of this passage is liturgical, that throughout the letter the community sees its own worship as having access to the heavenly temple, and that 12:18–​23 expresses this liturgical experience.20 In my opinion, the passage is not about a dislocation from Sinai. The author calls the community to participate in Sinai only a few lines down, in vv. 26–​29. Also, when 13:11–​12 describe the

20  “The Convergence of Adamic and Merkabah Traditions in the Christology of Hebrews,” in Craig A. Evans, Jeremiah J. Johnston, eds., Searching the Scriptures: Studies in Context and Intertextuality (London: T&T Clark 2015), 277–​296.

236   Silviu N. Bunta central-​point of the liturgy of the community as a perennial Yom Kippur, the allusion is to Sinai.21 At the end of a close analysis of Sinai language in Hebrews, Gabriella Gelardini calls Exodus 32–​33 “the primary intertext” of the entire Hebrews 13 and I couldn’t agree more.22 Therefore, it seems to me that 12:18–​23 is excluding from the church experience a specific shortcoming of Sinai: Sinai included no hearing of actual words, but only a voice. This is made clear in 12:25: “See that you do not beg off him who is speaking.” Furthermore, the community’s liturgical experience reaches not only to Zion and Sinai—​locations which the community claims to experience in the highest and fullest—​but it goes even further back, all the way to Eden. The language of 6:7–​8 describes the community in terms closely reminiscent of Paradise, as I argued elsewhere.23 In conclusion Hebrews speaks for a community that traces its identity, witnessed primarily in the liturgy, all the way back to Eden, through Zion and Sinai.

Corinthians 3:11–​18 My third and final text, also related to Sinai, is 2 Cor 3:11–​18. It is part of an epistle that is a long look at suffering, mortality, and death.24 In my translation: For if that which is brought to naught, [is brought to naught] through glory, how much more that which remains, [remains] in glory! Having therefore such a hope, we receive great boldness, and not as Moses put a veil over his face so that the sons of Israel not gaze at the completion of that which is brought to naught. But their thoughts were petrified; for to this day of today at the reading of the old covenant, the same veil remains, unlifted, so that it is brought to naught in Christ. But until today, whenever Moses is read, a veil is set over their heart; yet, whenever one turns to the Lord the veil is cast off. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we all, with unveiled face, beholding within ourselves the Glory of the Lord, are being changed into the very same Image from glory to glory, as from the Spirit of the Lord.

The parallelism between Moses and the Scripture is evident: both have an aspect which is brought to naught and an aspect which remains. Furthermore, the ones who hear Moses (inscribed in the scriptural text) enter the same dynamic; they too are what is brought to naught and what remains, and they too are veiled like him and like the Scriptures. What is veiled is the process of being brought to naught, a process which the Glory–​Christ works upon both human and text.

21  This was noticed by Gabriella Gelardini, “Charting ‘Outside the Camp’ with Edward W. Soja: Critical Spatiality and Hebrews 13,” in Gabriella Gelardini and Harold Attridge, eds., Hebrews in Contexts (Boston, Leiden: Brill, 2016), 210–​237. 22  Gelardini, “Critical Spatiality and Hebrews 13,” 225ff. 23  “The Convergence of Adamic and Merkabah Traditions,” 282–​283. 24  To his eastern reception the apostle appears first and foremost as an ascetic and mystic. For this reception, see particularly Fr. Maximos Constas, “The Reception of Paul and of Pauline Theology in the Byzantine Period,” in Derek Krueger and Robert Nelson, eds., The New Testament in Byzantium (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 2016), 147–​176; and Maximos Constas, “Paul the Hesychast: Gregory Palamas and the Pauline Foundations of Hesychast Theology and Spirituality,” Analogia 4/​2 (2017): 31–​47.

Tradition   237 The idea of the text is not that Paul and his hearers do not experience the same process as Moses and his hearers, but rather that, unlike the generation from old, the apostle and his followers unveil this process. Simultaneously this unveiling reveals the Glory—​Christ in the text and in the listener. Or rather the unveiling of Christ in the text takes place as he is also revealed in the listener. The difference between the old and new generations is not one of substance; on the contrary, the passage implies that they share the same indwelling of Christ. Rather, “today” text and listener are revealed as the dwellings of the Glory, the Image whom Israel veils but on whom the apostle gazes within himself and into whom he transforms, to ever greater degrees of Glory. In this unveiling the coming to naught is revealed as “completion.” If Hebrews expresses the newness of “today” in terms of access, Paul sees it as an unveiling.25 In the rest of the epistle the language continues to echo 3:11–​18, but it goes further and reaches ever greater bluntness. The Glory is revealed as measurelessness in nothing, treasure in an earthen vessel, light in darkness (4:6–​7). To be human means to die at all times, to be dying flesh, to rot, to be dissolved, to groan, and for Paul this process is a christophany (4:10–​11, 16–​17; 5:1–​4). The pressure of suffering and dying is the enlargement of the indwelling Christ (4:8; 6:11–​13). The christification of the human being is not an ethical conformation to Christ, nor a solidarity with him in the cruelty of life, but rather an ascetical union: the apostle finds his Lord in his dying flesh and in rotting away. It is significant that the recounting of his own christophanies (which echo Moses’s vision from 3:11–​18) occasions the ultimate statement “I am nothing” (12:11). Therefore, the program, as it were, of the Christian life is precisely to lose, to be broken, and to die, to turn to nothing, and in all this to be Christ. The ascetical effort itself comes down to self-​emptying, to hollowing out of one’s self (which is a sort of death), so that inner space is made for Christ. What is particularly important for the topic of this essay is that Paul writes all this in such ways as to be fully intelligible only to the ones having the same experience of death.26 This comes as no surprise. In the opening chapters of 1 and 2 Corinthians (among other places) he offers a sort of universal hermeneutics, a key that opens all reality (both texts and nontexts), and this universal hermeneutical key—​he insists—​is not discursive or intellectual (e.g., 1 Cor 1:21; 2 Cor 1:12), but rather experiential and ascetical: reality and texts can only be known through the possession of the mind of Christ who is the wisdom of God (cf. 1 Cor 2:6–​8, 16, 24, 30). The proper hermeneutical procedure is then the same radical experience of death which I have already mentioned in relation to Deut 5:3. The hermeneutical claim of 2 Cor 3:11–​18 itself is that a nonascetical, veiled reading is deadening to both text and reader: It de-​spirits the text and “petrifies” the reader. By operating analytically rather than ascetically, not only does one always end up working on a dead letter, but one also ends up being lifeless.

25 

Both imageries appear in the fifth prayer of Holy Unction. 6:13 he explicitly asks his readers or listeners to undergo this enlarging death, and in 4:12 he rebukes their refusal to die. 26  In

238   Silviu N. Bunta

Thoughts on the Texts The Self-​Descriptions of Scripture and Tradition To draw a first and fundamental conclusion about my selected texts, the Scriptures do not write to a discursive interpretation. Moreover, many fathers, such as Maximus the Confessor27 and Gregory Palamas,28 will state in no unclear terms that discursive theology is not part of the Orthodox Tradition. Their claim and the texts analyzed here suggest that this is so in continuity with the theophanic experience of Israel.29 For Israel—​and this is already expressed in the language of “covenant”—​to be part of its identity meant to live a life passed on through generations and handed down from heaven, and not to subscribe to certain beliefs and practices. The experience of Sinai is at the heart of this continuity, because the entire trajectory of this long line of theology is theophanic. Tradition is anchored and heightens in theophanies.30 Israel has already learned from theophanies that people cannot draw close to God in any way, certainly not by epistemological endeavors.31 Only God can cross the distance between himself and his creation, and he does reveal himself to experience or participatory knowledge, and only to this knowledge, as Maximus would insist.32 This is to say that directly God is only known in deification, in the experience of becoming, in holiness, and not in intellections. At the foundation of Orthodox theology, as a basic premise, stands this kinship with God, this experience of God received from theophanies. The Orthodox Tradition emphasizes this theophanic lesson by insisting that God is “inexpressible” and “incomprehensible” as the fundamental premise of all knowledge of God.33 God is “inexpressible, inconceivable, and incomprehensible” (ἀνέκφραστος, ἀπερινόητος, ἀκατάληπτος), the two anaphoras put it bluntly. Another theophanic lesson follows immediately: As the liturgy insists, only some of these inexpressible divine realities are “unutterable” (ἄφατος and ἄρρητος). This is a great mystery: The inexpressible God is only partly unutterable. Indeed, the Scriptures speak of the inexpressible God. They can do this only because, in theophany, in entering into human experience and into dialogue with people, God clothes himself in our language. In this divine donning language is both given a divine fluency (first and foremost captured in the Scriptures) and is bound to become more expressive only as it collapses more greatly.34 As soon as the intellect collapses, or rather in the very act of collapsing, of emptying itself of

27 

For example, in The Responses to Thalassios on Difficulties in Sacred Scripture 60.4–​6. Triads open with this essential point (1.1; see also 1.3.3, 2.3.63). 29  E.g., Gregory Palamas, Triads 1.1.11, 13; 1.3.6. 30  Cf. ibid., 2.3.63. 31  The insistence on this goes all the way back to Scripture (e.g., John 1:5, 3:27, 6:34, 12:32). 32  For example, the prologue to The Responses to Thalassios. 33  See for example Gregory of Nyssa, Life of Moses in Werner Jaeger, ed., Gregorii Nysseni opera 7/​1 (Leiden, Brill, 1964), 86–​87, 115. 34  It is only normal that as language moves away from categories into the realm of experience it blunders. One can think of the failure of language in Ezekiel 1, a face-​to-​face vision of the Glory, and also at the peak of the anaphora (where it reaches unprecedented simplicity). 28 The

Tradition   239 its own deductive or discursive inclinations, of imagining God (and this collapse of the intellect is necessary for experiential knowledge to happen), the human being comes to gaze on God clothed in itself, in its words. These two theophanic lessons are, in my opinion, fundamental premises of “Palamism”—​a terrible misnomer. And they also clarify the content of Tradition: Tradition is kinship with God, life as received from God through theophanies and as passed down through generations. There is another fundamental point to be made here: the failure of the intellect is in the Orthodox Tradition a fundamental premise, not the later gain of apophaticism. Not only is all direct knowledge of God experiential, but it is also at the level of experience that one encounters apophaticism, not at the level of the intellect. Orthodox apophaticism is the overwhelming of the heart by the superabundance of the experience. The darkness of the vision is not the collapse of the intellect and of epistemological categories, but the superabundance of light. This language of vision and apophaticism is also learned of old, from the theophanies to Israel. Against this background of scriptural and patristic self-​descriptions it becomes clearer that the impulse of the (post)modern Orthodox to discern a conceptual content to faith is indicative of another historical reality, inaugurated by radical shifts taking place in the Christian medieval west. The first is the fundamental shift from living life informally, unquestioningly (not noninquisitively!), and experientially, to living life in fear, formally, questioningly, and logically.35 This shift in the communal psyche set in motion a sequence of theological innovations—​the methodolization of scriptural hermeneutics, the rationalization of the Christian identity, the scientization of theology—​all culminating in the doctrinalization and pragmatization of faith in some classical Protestantisms, and in the individualization and voluntarization of it in John Locke’s naturalist philosophy. In brief, the ascetical framework of Tradition (internal, spiritual, and soteriological) was vitiated through abstractizations and systematizations. What this long trajectory of major shifts ultimately supplanted is not a kindred theology with other propositions, nor methods with other presuppositions, nor another system gravitating around different pivots, nor alternative conceptualizations or practices, but rather a way of being. These shifts have done away with Tradition. As all of this becomes clear, statements about Scripture and Tradition from any other location but from within this divine life inherited from of old, from the theophanies of Israel, refuse their self-​descriptions. And, to revisit the point which opened this chapter, this is the fundamental issue: to read Scripture and Tradition on their own terms. Tradition, even in its written expressions—​Scriptures, fathers, hymnography, creeds, etc.—​presents itself not as a metaphysics to be deciphered, a language to be discerned and learned, concepts to be understood, categories to be employed, propositions to be adopted, but as an inheritance of theophanic life to be had ascetically, through death. This understanding of Tradition as inherited life reaching all the way back to God through Israel accounts for a principal claim of the Orthodox Church, clearly stated in the liturgy: its faith is the faith of the prophets, of the patriarchs before them, and of the ancestors before them.

35  See the cogent remarks in Johannes Fried, The Middle Ages (Cambridge: The Belknap Press), esp. 328–​330.

240   Silviu N. Bunta In light of all this, it is improper to speak of “Scripture and Tradition.” It is more accurate to speak of Scripture as an expression of Tradition. And, just like for Paul, this is at once both a hermeneutical and ascetical point. This means first and foremost that Scripture solicits a hermeneutic of life integration and has safety mechanisms for the prevention of other reading practices, distant and discursive; if the latter practices are adopted, the Scripture makes sure to disintegrate, to become nonsensical in their hands. The selected texts analyzed earlier practice precisely this hermeneutical strategy, so to speak. Some ancient fathers, such as Ephrem the Syrian, also expressed this point when they insisted that the Scriptures are essentially poetic.36 It follows that, just like the author, the listener functions properly only in a poetic manner. To read the Scriptures in other ways (such as epistemologically) is tantamount to attempting to understand a love poem37 through analyses of the stylistic devices which the poem uses (rhyme, rhythm, metaphors etc.). Such analyses can only miss the substance of the poem, or its heart. A love poem elicits a hermeneutics of love.38 Fundamentally St. Gregory of Nyssa conceives Scripture in the same way when he envisions it as a portrait and warns against remaining at the level of analyzing the pigments in it, rather than perceiving and embodying its moving beauty: In the art of portraiture, there is a piece of wood that, when touched with different colors, presents an imitation of a living thing, but the person who looks at the image that art has created with colors does not dwell upon the sight contrived by dyes painted on the tablet. Rather, he looks solely upon the form that the artist has used colors to indicate. In the same way, where the writing now before us [the Song of Songs] is concerned, the right thing is not to attend to the material stuff of the “colors” contained in the words but rather to discern in them as it were the image of the King traced by pure thoughts.39

The king is Christ, as Gregory explains. Furthermore, the king is of such nature that the proper gazing at his image is transformation into him.40 Rather, these are not two processes, but one and the same: The king takes shape inside the one who perceives him, and vice-​ versa. If there is any perceptible diachronicity between the two aspects of interpretation—​ contemplation and transformation—​the primacy belongs to the transformation: Only the one who is becoming the king is recognizing the king. To echo 2 Cor 3:11–​18, the coherence of the Scriptures is available only to the listener who already “knows” (or rather embodies) the Image whom the Scriptures are expressing. In eliciting this hermeneutics Scripture makes a point that is radically Wittgensteinian: The only hermeneutical key that unlocks Scripture is the very life that produced it, life which is Tradition. Therefore, the “program” of reading—​as it were—​that Scripture desires is ascetical-​erotic.41 It is not one of investigation, but one of kenotic death and self-​denying 36 

See the pertinent remarks in Sebastian Brock, The Luminous Eye: The Spiritual World Vision of St. Ephrem (Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications, 1985), 23–​25, 160–​161. 37  The Scriptures as a love poem is an imagery used, among others, by Ephrem (Hymns on paradise 5.3–​4) and Origen (Homilies to the Song of Songs 1 and 2.8). 38  The language is particularly present in Syriac literature, such as in Odes of Solomon 3, Hymn of the Pearl 14. 39  Gregory of Nyssa, Homilies on the Song of Songs, trans. Richard A. Norris (Atlanta: SBL, 2012), 31. 40  See also Homilies on the Song of Songs 3 (GNO 6.91); On Perfection (GNO 8/​1.194–​196). 41  I am using “erotic” here in the Dionysian sense of going out of one’s self.

Tradition   241 love. The scriptural texts analyzed earlier elicit this hermeneutics of death, ascetical, physical. The Scriptures are completed in the human being and, in the language of 2 Cor 3:11–​18 and of the liturgy, the human being becomes complete (τελέω) only in death. In this hermeneutics the text, as something which is ultimately human, is also subjected to death. When the text reaches the listener who is ascetically dead, it dies as a text only to continue as embodied life. One of the essential functions of this proper (or accurate) hermeneutic is to obliterate the text, to detextualize it. As we have seen with Deut 5:3, Scripture comes to die in the listener as a text precisely in order to continue as life. It could be said that just like its Lord, Scripture is a death and resurrection reality. Scripture is a text that always wants to die, so that nothing of human deadness remains—​letters, words, inks, parchment, paper, speech, etc.—​but only Life. Even though it is enshrined in text, Tradition bears an essential and constant pull to discard all its textualizations, even the Scriptures, which are its purest expression, because Tradition is essentially textless. To Tradition, the Scriptures are as a fall from it.42 Therefore Tradition wants to detextualize and behaves in such ways as to make texts increasingly redundant.43 The hermeneutic of death presents itself as the only proper hermeneutic of Tradition and Scriptures, because it serves precisely this essential pull, for Tradition to detextualize, for the Scriptures to die.44 Finally, this means that, through this ascetical-​hermeneutical death, the listener gains not a perspective, nor vocabulary, neither erudition, but a life that comes with its own fluency. With living a life different from one’s own—​the life of the One-​who-​is—​comes the fluency of that life, the one fluency of Tradition. This fluency is first and foremost expressed in worship, as Israel has already learned, in the worship inherited from theophanies and grounded in heaven.

Bibliography Behr, John. John the Theologian and His Paschal Gospel. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019. Brock, Sebastian. The Luminous Eye: The Spiritual World Vision of St. Ephrem. Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications, 1985. Bucur, Bogdan. Scripture Re-​envisioned: Christophanic Exegesis and the Making of a Christian Bible. Leiden: Brill, 2019. Bulgakov, Sergius. The Orthodox Church. Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1988. Bunta, Silviu N. “The Convergence of Adamic and Merkabah Traditions in the Christology of Hebrews.” In Searching the Scriptures: Studies in Context and Intertextuality, ed. by Craig A. Evans and Jeremiah J. Johnston, 277–​296. London: T&T Clark, 2015. Constas, Maximos. “The Reception of Paul and of Pauline Theology in the Byzantine Period.” In The New Testament in Byzantium, ed. by Derek Krueger and Robert Nelson, 147–​176. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 2016.

42  See, for example, the comments in John Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew 1; Gregory of Sinai, On the Signs of Grace and Delusion 1; Maximus the Confessor, Two Hundred Texts on Theology 2.73–​75. 43  Cf. Symeon the New Theologian, 153 chapters 118; Maximus the Confessor, Two Hundred Texts on Theology 2.80–​81. 44  My point is not that Tradition is doctrine-​ less and practice-​less, but rather that doctrine and practice are (some of the) ways in which Tradition expresses itself.

242   Silviu N. Bunta Constas, Maximos. “Paul the Hesychast: Gregory Palamas and the Pauline Foundations of Hesychast Theology and Spirituality.” Analogia 4/​2 (2017): 31–​47. Florovsky, Georges. Bible, Church, Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox View. Belmont: Nordland Publishing Company, 1972. Fried, Johannes. The Middle Ages. Cambridge: The Belknap Press, 2015. Gelardini, Gabriella. “Charting ‘Outside the Camp’ with Edward W. Soja: Critical Spatiality and Hebrews 13.” In Hebrews in Contexts, ed. by Gabriella Gelardini and Harold Attridge, 210–​237. Boston, Leiden: Brill, 2016. Gregory of Nyssa. Homilies on the Song of Songs, trans. Richard A. Norris. Atlanta: SBL, 2012. Jaeger, Werner. Gregorii Nysseni opera 7/​1. Leiden, Brill, 1964. Legaspi, Michael. The Death of Scripture and the Rise of Biblical Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. Levenson, Jon D. Sinai and Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible. San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1985. Lossky, Vladimir. In the Image and Likeness of God. Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1974. McGuckin, John A. The Orthodox Church. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2008. Najman, Hindy. Seconding Sinai: The Development of Mosaic Discourse in Second Temple Judaism. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Pentiuc, Eugen J. The Old Testament in Eastern Orthodox Tradition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. o allegoria: Un contributo alla storia dell’esegesi patristica. Simonetti, Manlio. Lettera e/​ Rome: Institutum Patristicum “Augustinianum,” 1985. Stăniloae, Dumitru. Le génie de l’Orthodoxie. Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1985. Stylianopoulos, Theodore. “Scripture and Tradition in the Church.” In The Cambridge Companion to Orthodox Christian Theology, ed. by E. Theokritoff and M. Cunningham, 21–​34. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Ulrich, Eugene, et al. The Biblical Qumran Scrolls: Transcriptions and Textual Variants. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Young, Frances. Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture. New York: Cambridge University, 1997.

Chapter 15

T he U se of th e Bi bl e i n B yz antine Li t u rg i c a l Texts and Se rv i c e s Stefanos Alexopoulos Introduction The Orthodox tradition, and rightly so, is characterized as a liturgical tradition. Liturgy is the heart, the language, and the life of the Orthodox Church, so much so that to the random observer there is often a false sense of the absence of Scripture from the liturgical gatherings and a contrast between being liturgical and biblical is implied. A closer and more attentive look, however, will reveal its biblical character.1 Scripture abounds in the Byzantine liturgical tradition; not only are scriptural readings present in almost every ritual occasion but also every office, service, prayer, and hymn is immersed in and imbued with direct Scriptural quotations and indirect Scriptural allusions.2 In fact, Scripture and liturgy are not seen as two antithetical aspects of Christian worship. Rather, they are to be understood as being intricately and intimately interrelated and connected. Liturgy is the natural home for Scripture, both for its proclamation and interpretation. Simultaneously, this liturgical framework of scriptural proclamation functions as a particular hermeneutical context and lens that should not be ignored. The worshiper is

1  Much has been written on this topic; see, for example, Petros Vasileiades, “Ὁ βιβλικὸς χαρακτήρας τῆς Ὀρθόδοξης Λατρείας” (The Biblical Character of Orthodox Worship), in Ἱερουργεῖν τὸ Εὐαγγέλιον: Ἡ Ἁγία Γραφὴ στὴν Ὀρθόδοξη Λατρεία (Athens: Apostoliki Diakonia, 2004), 35–​66. For abundant bibliographical references, see the notes. Also available online at http://​users.auth.gr/​pv/​ 04%20B​ibli​cal%20Ch​arac​ter%20of%20O​rtho​dox%20Wors​hip.pdf (December 3, 2020). 2 Demetrios Constantelos, “The Holy Scriptures in Greek Orthodox Worship,” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 12 (1966), 7–​83, here 9. This article is a summary of the author’s master’s thesis submitted to Princeton in 1959, and reflects the efforts of Orthodox theologians of that era to defend the Scriptural nature and character of the Orthodox Church and its liturgical life.

244   Stefanos Alexopoulos exposed to the Scriptures in the liturgical context, and his/​her understanding of the Scriptures is formed through the accompanying ritual context, including hymnography and iconography.

The Bible and Liturgy in Recent Conferences In recent years, there is growing attention among scholars of both biblical and Byzantine studies who have come to explore and present the place of Scripture within the Byzantine liturgical tradition. Non-​Orthodox scholars have come to acknowledge the strong bind between Scripture and liturgy and their particular relationship in the Byzantine tradition. For example, Klaas Spronk, a Dutch biblical scholar from the Reformed tradition, notes: Among Eastern orthodox scholars the liturgical context of the Bible is more or less taken for granted. For Western scholars the liturgical context is usually strictly separated from the exegesis of the biblical text. Textual criticism endeavors to get as close as possible to the original text. Historical criticism endeavors to find out how and when this text came into existence. Literary methods analyze how the text is structured. Scholars are accustomed to the idea that text as part of liturgy is something completely different. This no longer belongs to the field of scholarly analysis, but to the communities of faith in which the Bible is read as sacred text and applied in sermons. This is a realm that can be described and analyzed by church historians, or by people studying the history of interpretation of biblical texts. There may be reasons, however, to question this almost arrogant opposition to the liturgical approach to the biblical texts. The strict literary and historical approach probably says more about the scholars using it than about the texts they are studying. One should at least take seriously that the traditional manner in which the biblical texts function in the Byzantine liturgy certainly stands closer to the way these texts were used in their original context.3

The last twenty years have seen a number of important conferences dedicated to the place, function, and interpretation of the Scriptures in the Byzantine tradition and its relationship to liturgy. Two back-​to back conferences held at Saint-​Serge in Paris in 2001 and 2002 and titled “La liturgie, interprète de l’écriture,” covered the readings for Sundays and feasts (2001), liturgical compositions, prayers and chants (2002).4 In 2003 the Special

3 

Klaas Spronk, “The Study of the Historical-​L iturgical Context of the Bible: A Bridge between ‘East’ and ‘West’?,” in A Catalogue of Byzantine Manuscripts in Their Liturgical Context: Challenges and Perspectives Collected Papers Resulting from the Expert Meeting of the Catalogue of Byzantine Manuscripts Programme Held at the PThU in Kampen, the Netherlands on 6th–​7th November 2009. CBM—​Subsidia 1, eds. Klaas Spronk, Gerard Rouwhorst, Stefan Royé (Turnhout: Brepols, 2013),15–​22, here 18–​19. 4  A. M. Triacca and A. Pistoia (eds.), La liturgie, interprète de l’écriture I: Les Lectures bibliques pour les dimanches et fêtes, Bibliotheca “Ephemerides Liturgicae” “Subsidia” 119 (Rome: Edizioni Liturgiche, 2002), and C. Braga and A. Pistoia (eds.), La liturgie, interprète de l’écriture II: Dans les compositions liutrgiques, prières et chants, Bibliotheca “Ephemerides Liturgicae” “Subsidia” 126 (Rome: Edizioni Liturgiche, 2003).

The Use of the Bible in Byzantine Liturgical Texts and Services    245 Synodical Committee on Liturgical Renewal of the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece held a conference with the title: Ἱερουργεῖν τὸ Εὐαγγέλιον: Ἡ Ἁγία Γραφὴ στὴν Ὀρθόδοξη Λατρεία.5 In 2009 a conference was organized in the Netherlands6 to test the “codico-​liturgical” method in the cataloging of biblical manuscripts articulated by Stefan Royé. This method does not isolate the biblical text but looks at biblical manuscripts as a whole and places great importance on the liturgical context and framework in which the biblical text appears.7 The conference “Liturgical Reception of the Bible: Dimensions and Perspectives for Inter-​disciplinary Research,” held in 2015 at the University of Regensburg,8 brought together liturgical and biblical scholars of all Christian traditions to discuss aspects of the interrelationship between Scripture and liturgy. Beginning in 1998 the Eastern European Liaison Committee of the Society for the Study of the New Testament (Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas, hence SNTS) has been organizing conferences bringing together Orthodox and Western (Roman Catholic and Protestant) scholars, thus building a bridge between different hermeneutical traditions. Since 1998, eight such conferences have taken place.9 More recently, Byzantinists are displaying a growing interest in the place of Scripture in Byzantium, exemplified in the two symposia organized by Dumbarton Oaks in Washington, DC, in 2006 “The Old Testament in Byzantium”10 and in 2013 “The New Testament in Byzantium.”11 The Twenty-​ Third International Congress of Byzantine Studies held in Belgrade in 2016 included two thematic sessions titled “Bible in Byzantium: Exegesis and Literary Inspiration” and “Byzantines and the Bible.”12 Most recently, Claudia Rapp and Andreas Külzer edited

5 

Ἱερουργεῖν τὸ Εὐαγγέλιον. Ἡ Ἁγία Γραφὴ στὴν Ὀρθόδοξη Έκκλησία. Πρακτικὰ Ε’ Πανελληνίου Λειτουργικοῦ Συμποσίου [Ministering the Gospel: Holy Scriptures in the Orthodox Church. Acta of the Fifth Panhellenic Liturgical Conference], Ποιμαντικὴ Βιβλιοθήκη 10 (Athens: Church of Greece, 2004). 6  Klaas Spronk, Gerard Rouwhorst, Stefan Royé (eds.), A Catalogue of Byzantine Manuscripts in Their Liturgical Context: Challenges and Perspectives Collected Papers Resulting from the Expert Meeting of the Catalogue of Byzantine Manuscripts Programme Held at the PThU in Kampen, the Netherlands on 6th–​7th November 2009. CBM -​Subsidia 1 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2013). 7  Stefan Royé, The Inner Cohesion between the Bible and the Fathers in Byzantine Tradition: Towards a Codico-​ Liturgical Approach to the Biblical and Patristic Manuscripts (Tilburg: Orthodox Logos Publishing, 2007). For a summary, see Stefan Royé, “An Assessment of Byzantine Codex and Catalogue Research: Towards the Construction of a New Series of Catalogues of Byzantine Manuscripts,” Sacris Erudiri 47 (2008), 5–​144. 8  The acta are to be published soon. 9 See http://​snts.intern​atio​nal/​eelc-​east-​west-​sympo​sia-​and-​publi​cati​ons/​ (last visited September 26, 2020) for the list of conferences, their themes, and publication information of the acta. It is in the context of the Seventh East-​West Symposium of New Testament Scholars that the author delivered a paper titled “The Gospel Narrative in Byzantine Liturgy,” in T. Nicklas, K. W. Niebuhr, M. Seleznev, eds., History and Theology in the Gospel Narratives (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2020), 235–​246. The present contribution expands on themes first presented there. 10 Paul Magdalino and Robert Nelson (eds.), The Old Testament in Byzantium (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2010). 11 Derek Krueger and Robert Nelson (eds.), The New Testament in Byzantium (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2016). 12  A total of twenty-​two papers were delivered in these sessions; for the abstracts, see Dejan Dželebdžić and Stanoje Bojanin (eds.), Proceeding of the 23rd International Congress of Byzantine Studies, Belgrade,

246   Stefanos Alexopoulos a volume titled The Bible in Byzantium: Appropriation, Adaptation, Interpretation,13 comprising papers delivered at the International Society of Biblical Literature held in Vienna in 2014, which had four sessions related to Byzantium.

The Lectionary System The Scriptures are proclaimed in the Byzantine tradition in almost every liturgical office celebrated, from the Divine Liturgy to a humble house blessing. The Scriptural lessons read in all these occasions are to be found primarily in the lectionaries. The lectionary system used in the Byzantine tradition dates to the seventh century, is annual, and is composed of three lectionary books or Eklogadia, the “Gospel” (lections from the four Gospels),14 the “Apostolos” (Acts and Epistles, also known as “Praxapostolos”),15 and what is called by scholars the “Prophetologion” (lections from the Old Testament).16 This latter lectionary is not in current use; rather, the Old Testament lections have been incorporated in the liturgical books of the Byzantine tradition, and more specifically in the Menaion, the Triodion, and the Pentecostarion.17 The lectionaries are organized according to two parallel annual liturgical cycles.

22–​27 August 2016: Thematic Sessions of Free Communications (Belgrade: Serbian National Committee of AIEB, 2016), 252–​261, 336–​345. 13 Claudia

Rapp and Andreas Külzer (eds), The Bible in Byzantium: Appropriation, Adaptation, Interpretation (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2019). 14 Mary-​ Lyon Dolezal, “The Middle Byzantine Lectionary: Textual and Pictorial Expressions of Liturgical Ritual” (PhD diss., University of Chicago, 1991); Christopher Jordan, “The Textual Tradition of the Gospel of John in Greek Gospel Lectionaries from the Middle Byzantine Period” (PhD diss., University of Birmingham, 2010). John Lowden, The Jaharis Gospel Lectionary: The Story of a Byzantine Book (New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2009). 15  Samuel Gibson, The Apostolos: The Acts and Epistles in Byzantine Liturgical Manuscripts, Texts and Studies 18 (Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2018). 16  For the Prophetologion, see Sysse Engberg, Carsten Høeg, Günther Zuntz (eds.), Prophetologium I–​II, Monumenta Musicae Byzantinae: Lectionaria 1 (Hauniae: Munksgaard, 1939–​ 1981); Sysse Engberg, “The Greek Old Testament Lectionary as a Liturgical Book,” Cahiers de l’Institut du Moyen Âge Grec et Latin 54 (1987), 39–​48; James Miller, “The Prophetologion: The Old Testament of Byzantine Christianity?” in Paul Magdalino and Robert Nelson, eds., The Old Testament in Byzantium(Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2010), 55–​77. For the debate whether there were ever Old Testament readings in the Byzantine Divine Liturgy, see (in chronological order) Sysse Engberg, “The Prophetologion and the Triple-​Lection Theory: The Genesis of a Liturgical Book,” Bollettino della Badia Greca di Grottaferrata 3 (2006), 67–​91; Robert Taft, “Were There Once Old Testament Readings in the Byzantine Divine Liturgy? Apropos of an Article by Sysse Gudrun Engberg,” Bollettino della Badia Greca di Grottaferrata 8 (2011), 271–​311; Sysse Engberg, “The Needle in the Haystack: Searching for Evidence of the Eucharistic Old Testament Lection in the Constantinopolitan Rite,” Bollettino della Badia Greca di Grottaferrata 13 (2016), 47–​60. 17  The Menaion, one for each month (September to August), contains the proper elements for fixed feasts of the liturgical year. The Triodion contains the proper elements of the services of the pre-​Lenten period, Great Lent, and Holy Week. The Pentecostarion contains the services of the period between Easter and All-​Saints Sunday; see Stefanos Alexopoulos and Dionysios Bilalis Anatolikiotes, “Towards a History of Printed Liturgical Books in the Modern Greek State: An Initial Survey,” Ecclesia Orans 34 (2017), 421–​460.

The Use of the Bible in Byzantine Liturgical Texts and Services    247 The first cycle, also known as Synaxarion, begins on Easter, which is the starting point of the lections for the movable feasts. In fact, both the Gospel and Apostle lectionary books open with the Easter readings. It divides the year, centered around Easter, in four liturgical periods: (1) the period of John, from Easter to Pentecost, when lections from the Gospel of John and Acts are read; (2) the period of Matthew, from the Monday after Pentecost to mid-​S eptember, when lections from the Gospel of Matthew, Romans, 1 Corinthians, and 2 Corinthians are read (with lections from Mark read on weekdays after the twelfth week); (3,) the period of Luke, from mid-​S eptember to Great Lent when lections from the Gospel of Luke, 1 Thessalonians, Colossians, and Hebrews are read (with lections from Mark read on weekdays after the thirteenth week); (4) the period of Mark, for the Saturdays and Sundays of Lent. During Holy Week lections from all four Gospels are chosen. During Great and Holy Week, lections from Hebrews, Galatians, and Romans are read. The second cycle, called Menologion, begins on September 1 (New Year’s Day in the Byzantine calendar) and defines the lections of feasts that have fixed dates. Those lections are chosen based on their relevance to the feast celebrated. A third cycle coordinates the list of the eleven morning/​ resurrection Gospel readings, numbered first to eleventh, that are read during Orthros/​Matins on Sundays:

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

Mt 28:16–​20 Mark 16:1–​8 Mark 16:9–​20 Lk 24:1–​12 Lk 24:12–​35 Lk 24:36–​53 Jn 20:1–​10 Jn 20:11–​18 Jn 20:19–​31 Jn 21:1–​14 Jn 21:14–​25

This cycle is initiated every Easter. The Gospel readings of this cycle are read in sequence, and each defines hymnic elements of the Sunday hymnography, as each of these eleven Gospel readings is paired with an exaposteilarion and an eothinon doxastikon. Both are dependent content-​wise on their paired morning/​resurrection Gospel. When the morning/​resurrection Gospel is read, its paired exaposteilarion and eothinon doxastikon are sung. The content of the hymns both reflect and relate to the Gospel reading. Through these hymns, the themes of these Gospel readings relating to the resurrection of Christ are repeated through the hymnody emphasizing the significance of the resurrection to the worshipper:18

18 Texts are from the Ages Digital Stand, https://​dcs.goa​rch.org/​goa/​dcs/​dcs.html (last visited September 30, 2020).

248   Stefanos Alexopoulos First Eothinon Gospel Mt 28:16–​20

First Eothinon Exaposteilarion

First Eothinon Doxastikon

At that time, the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. And when they saw Him they worshiped Him; but some doubted. And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age. Amen.”

On the mountain in Galilee let us join the Disciples, so that by faith we see and hear Christ say that He was given authority both in heaven and on earth, and His teaching on how to baptize nations all, in the name of the Father and of the Son and the Holy Spirit, and how He always is with His Mystics, to the end of the age, as He promised.

The Disciples hastened to the mountain for the Lord’s ascension from the earth; and there the Lord appeared to them. They worshipped Him, and were instructed about the universal authority He was given; and they were sent out to the whole world to preach the resurrection from the dead and the restoration to heaven. And He, who never lies, promised to be with them forever; He is Christ our God and the Savior of our souls

It is in the context of the liturgical life of the Church that the worshiper becomes acquainted with the New Testament, both through the readings and their hymnographical commentary. This reality is highlighted by the fact that personal access to the Scriptures was quite limited compared to modern times. Today, everyone has or can have access to the whole Bible, either in print or in electronic form or in audio, allowing for immediate access, personal study, and reflection. However, it was dramatically different in Byzantine times. Given the relatively high rates of illiteracy at Byzantine times (compared to today),19 combined with the inaccessibility of the complete text of the Bible,20 the liturgical context emerges as the primary venue for the dissemination of the Scriptures, both for their proclamation, through the scriptural readings, and their interpretation, through homilies, hymns, and icons. Derek Krueger and Robert Nelson put it well when they wrote, “Whether literate or not, most Byzantines absorbed their New Testament through hearing the ritualized reading or intoning of the text in the course of the liturgy, particularly in the lections, or readings, appointed for the day. Thus, the lectionary was the primary source of the New Testament’s

19  See, for example, Robert Browing, “Literacy in the Byzantine World,” Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 4 (1978), 39–​54. Catherine Holmes and Judith Waring (eds.), Literacy, Education and Manuscript Transmission in Bzyantium and Beyond (Leiden/​Boston/​Köln: Brill, 2002). Margaret Mullett, Letters, Literacy and Literature in Byzantium (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2007). 20 See, for example, Nigel Wilson, “Books and Readers in Byzantium,” in Byzantine Books and Bookmen: A Dumbarton Oaks Colloquium (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Center for Byzantine Studies, 1975), 1–​15; Cyril Mango, “The Availability of Books in the Byzantine Empire, A.D. 750–​850,” in ibid, 29–​45; Nigel Wilson, “Libraries in Byzantium and the West,” in St Catherine’s Monastery at Mount Sinai: Its Manuscripts and Their Conservation; Papers Given in Memory of Professor Ihor Ševčenko (London: Saint Catherine Foundation, 2011), 17–​19.

The Use of the Bible in Byzantine Liturgical Texts and Services    249 stories and teachings. . . . The lectionary mapped the story of the New Testament on the liturgical year.”21

The Psalter The Book of Psalms or the Psalter22 is the backbone of the Liturgy of the Hours,23 the structural grid on which hymnology developed (together with the biblical odes),24 and at the center of Orthodox devotion and piety.25 The Liturgy of the Hours is the primary context in which the psalms are used in public worship. The Psalms are part of the nonvariable elements of each office. For example, Orthros/​Matins is the home of psalms 19, 20 (royal office), 3, 37, 62, 87, 102, 142 (hexapsalmos), 117 (verses for “God is the Lord” response), 118 or 134–​135 (polyeleos), 50, 148–​150 (lauds).26 The final six to ten verses (always even, number depending on the liturgical celebration) of psalm 150 receive hymns as responses. Originally the response would be a verse of the psalm (similarly with psalm 140 at vespers),27 but soon the response expanded to poetical compositions relevant to the liturgical cycle or feast. Added to these are the variable psalms constituting the “Kathisma” of the day, part of the continuous reading of the Psalter, so that the whole Psalter is read once every week during the year, twice every week during Great Lent.28 Liturgical Psalters include as an appendix the nine biblical odes or canticles. These are: 1. The Song of Moses (Exodus 15:1–​19) 2. The Song of Moses (Deuteronomy 32:1–​43) 3. The Prayer of Hannah (1 Kings 2:1–​10)

21 Derek

Krueger and Robert Nelson, “New Testaments of Byzantium: Seen, Heard, Written, Excerpted, Interpreted,” in Derek Krueger and Robert Nelson, eds., The New Testament in Byzantium (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2016), 1–​20, here 10. 22  For the history of the Psalter in the Byzantine tradition, see Georgi Parpulov, Toward a History of Byzantine Psalters, ca. 850–​1350 AD (Plovdiv: NP, 2014). 23  Robert Taft, The Liturgy of the Hours in East and West, 2nd rev. ed. (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1993). 24  Oliver Strunk, “The Byzantine Office at Hagia Sophia,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 9–​10 (1956), 177–​ 202; Stig Symeon Frøyshov, “Byzantine Rite,” The Canterbury Dictionary of Hymnology (Canterbury Press, accessed November 5, 2020, http://​www.hymnol​ogy.co.uk/​b/​byzant​ine-​rite); “Rite of Jerusalem,” The Canterbury Dictionary of Hymnology (Canterbury Press, accessed November 5, 2020, http://​www. hymnol​ogy.co.uk/​r/​rite-​of-​jerusa​lem); “Greek Hymnody,” The Canterbury Dictionary of Hymnology (Canterbury Press, accessed November 5, 2020, http://​www.hymnol​ogy.co.uk/​g/​greek-​hymn​ody); “Rite of Constantinople,” The Canterbury Dictionary of Hymnology (Canterbury Press, accessed November 5, 2020, http://​www.hymnology.co.uk/​r/​rite-​of-​constantinople) 25 Georgi Parpulov, “Psalters and Personal Piety in Byzantium,” in Paul Magdalino and Robert Nelson, eds., The Old Testament in Byzantium (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2010), 77–​105. 26  For an outline of Orthros/​Matins, see Taft, The Liturgy of the Hours, 279–​282. 27 Strunk, “The Byzantine Office at Hagia Sophia”; Stefanos Alexopoulos, “When a Column Speaks: The Liturgy of the Christian Parthenon,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 69 (2015), 159–​178. 28  See Mother Mary and Kallistos Ware, The Festal Menaion (South Canaan, PA: St. Tikhon’s Press, 1990), 530–​534.

250   Stefanos Alexopoulos

4. The Prayer of Habbakkuk (Habbakkuk 3:1–​19) 5. The Prayer of Isaiah (Isaiah 26:9–​20) 6. The Prayer of Jonah (Jonah 2:3–​10) 7. The Prayer of the Three Holy Children (Daniel 3: 26–​56) 8. The Prayer of the Three Holy Children (Daniel 3: 57–​88) 9. The Song of the Theotokos (Luke 1:46–​55) and the Prayer of Zacharias (Luke 1:68–​79)29

These are significant, for they form the backbone of the hymnological genre of the canon. The hymns of each of the eight odes of the canon (the second ode is usually omitted as very penitential) were originally responses to the verses of each ode, and the model hymn for the responses of each ode needs to be textually dependent on the biblical ode it belongs to. For example, the eirmos (model hymn) of the first ode of the canon for the feast of the universal exaltation of the Cross has clear references to Exodus 15:1–​19: “Inscribing the invincible weapon of the Cross upon the waters, Moses marked a straight line before him with his staff and divided the Red Sea, opening a path for Israel who went over dry-​shod. Then he marked a second line across the waters and united them in one, overwhelming the chariots of Pharaoh. Therefore let us sing to Christ our God, for He is glorified.”30 Similarly, the eirmos of the first ode of the iambic canon for the feast of the Epiphany (Baptism) of the Lord reads: “Israel passed through the storm-​tossed deep of the sea, that God had turned into dry land. But the dark waters completely covered the chief captains of Egypt in a watery grave through the mighty strength of the right hand of the Master.”31 In both of these sample cases, it is obvious that the poet freely uses material from Exodus 15:1–​19 and retells the story in a hymnographical commentary of the feast celebrated.

The Biblical Character of the Liturgical Year The annual cycle of feasts commemorating events of salvation history and comprising Dominical feasts, Marian feasts, and feasts of saints, is scripturally oriented. Not only are the most significant events of salvation history annually celebrated (Dominical feasts) but also humanity’s participation in salvation history (Marian feasts), and the effects of salvation history, salvation itself as a reality (feasts of Saints), are all celebrated. In other words, the annual liturgical year is the ritual celebration of salvation as proclaimed through Scripture and lived out in the life of the Church that demonstrates that salvation in Christ is real (the feasts of saints). Hence the liturgical year becomes the occasion for the proclamation of the Good News of salvation in Christ, each time focusing on a particular aspect of the Divine Economy. The liturgical year then also becomes the hermeneutic context of Scripture: Scripture is not just proclaimed in the liturgical event, it is also interpreted, understood, and applied. The earliest clear evidence32 of such an approach comes from the

29 

Mary and Ware, The Festal Menaion, 548. Mary and Ware, The Festal Menaion, 144. 31  Mary and Ware, The Festal Menaion, 367. 32  First presented in Alexopoulos, “The Gospel Narrative in Byzantine Liturgy,” 237–​238. What follows draws from this publication. 30 

The Use of the Bible in Byzantine Liturgical Texts and Services    251 famous Spanish nun Egeria, who describes Holy Friday liturgy at the Holy Sepulcher in fourth-​century Jerusalem: A chair is placed for the bishop before the Cross, and from the sixth to the ninth hour nothing else is done except the reading of passages from Scripture. First, whichever Psalms speak of the Passion are read. Next, there are readings from the apostles, either from the Epistles of the apostles or the Acts, wherever they speak of the Passion of the Lord. Next, the texts of the Passion from the Gospels are read. Then there are readings from the prophets, where they said that the Lord would suffer; and then they read from the Gospels, where He foretells the Passion. And so, from the sixth to the ninth hour, passages from Scripture are continually read and hymns are sung, to show the people that whatever the prophets had said would come to pass concerning the Passion of the Lord can be shown, both through the Gospels and the writings of the apostles, to have taken place. And so, during those three hours, all the people are taught that nothing had happened which was not first prophesized, and that nothing was prophesized which was not completely fulfilled. Prayers are continually interspersed, and the prayers themselves are proper to the day.33

In this repetitive passage at least two principles emerge: first, that the operating hermeneutic principle of the Scriptures, and particularly of the Old Testament, is Christological; the Old Testament is to be read and understood through the lenses of the fulfillment of the Old Testament in Christ. Egeria notes above that this is done to show the people that whatever the prophets had said would come to pass concerning the Passion of the Lord can be shown, both through the Gospels and the writings of the apostles, to have taken place; second, that liturgy functions not only as the locus for the communal worship of God but also as the primary context for the faith formation of the believers. Again, Egeria understands these liturgical gatherings of the liturgical year not just as time-​spaces for worship but also as teaching opportunities: “all the people are taught that nothing had happened which was not first prophesized, and that nothing was prophesized which was not completely fulfilled.” The liturgical principle operative here then is that each liturgical celebration is defined by and structured around the appointed Scriptural readings of that particular liturgical commemoration,34 in this case the Passion of the Lord. The operation of this principle can be observed in every Dominical feast of the Byzantine liturgical tradition. The themes and the ecclesial interpretation of the selected Old Testament and New Testament readings (often overlapping in content and sometimes repetitive) are highlighted through the interspersed hymnology that draws its contents from the Scriptures read.35 33  George

Gigras, Egeria: Diary of a Pilgrimage, Ancient Christian Writers 38 (New York: Newman Press, 1970) 112 (­chapter 37). 34  Alexopoulos, “The Gospel Narrative in Byzantine Liturgy,” 237. For a discussion on this same passage of Egeria, see Eugen Pentiuc, The Old Testament in Eastern Orthodox Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 208–​209. 35  See, for example, the Royal Hours of Holy Friday, Epiphany Eve, and Christmas Eve. For the texts in English of the Royal Hours of Holy Friday, see Mother Mary and Kallistos Ware, The Lenten Triodion (London: Faber & Faber, 1984), 600–​610. For the texts in English of the Royal Hours of Epiphany Eve and Christmas Eve, see Mother Mary and Kallistos Ware, The Festal Menaion (South Canaan, PA: St. Tikhon’s Seminary Press, 1990), 221–​249 and 314–​336 respectively. For more on the use of the Old Testament in Byzantine liturgy and hymnography, see Pentiuc, The Old Testament in Eastern Orthodox Tradition, 199–​262.

252   Stefanos Alexopoulos

The Biblical Character of Liturgical Prayers The liturgical prayers of the Byzantine tradition are laden with abundant scriptural citations and allusions. Most liturgical prayers follow the structure bipartite structure of anamensis (protasis/​remembrance)—​epiclesis (apodosis/​petition), concluding the prayer with a doxology. Cesare Giraudo has shown that this bipartite structure is itself biblical, as can be seen in five different type of prayers in the Old Testament:36 Anamensis (protasis/​remembrance)

Epiclesis (apodosis/​petition)

Jos 24:2–​13

Jos 24:14

Deut 26:5–​9

Deut 26:10

Deut. 32:1–​18

Deut 32:19, 21–​23, 25

Psalm 43 (44):1–​22

Psalm 43 (44):23, 26

Nehemiah 9:6–​31

Nehemiah 9:32, 35–​37

This structure of prayer is simple but very powerful. The biblical precedent is invoked in the anamnesis, as the epiclesis is always based on the assurance that God will act now as He has acted in the past. This reminder of those instances from the Scriptures assures the praying believer(s) that God will act accordingly in their cases too. For example, the third matrimonial prayer of the Byzantine Crowning (Marriage)37 service follows this exact structure: Structural Elements

Prayer Text

Scriptural Connections

Anamnesis

Holy God, Who fashioned man from the dust, and from his rib fashioned woman, and joined her to him as a helpmate for him, for it was seemly unto Your Majesty for man not to be alone upon the earth,

Gen 2:7 Gen 2:22 Gen 2:18

Epiclesis

do You Yourself, O Sovereign Lord, stretch forth Your hand from Your holy dwelling place, and join together this Your servant (Name) and Your servant (Name), for by You is a wife joined to her husband. Join them together in oneness of mind; crown them with wedlock into one flesh; grant to them the fruit of the womb, and the gain of well-​favored children,

Ps 143:7, Ps 32:14, II Par   6:30, 30:7 Prov 19:14 Gen 2:24 Gen 30:2 Ps 131:11

36 

Cesare Giraudo, La struttura letteraria della Preghiera Eucaristica: Saggi sulla genesi letteraria di una forma: Toda veterotestamentaria, Beraka giudaic, anafora cristiana, Analecta Biblica 92 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1981). 37 Constantelos, “The Holy Scriptures in Greek Orthodox Worship,” 67; Panagiotes Trempelas, Μικρὸν Εὐχολόγιον, vol. 1 (Athens: NP, 1950); Stefano Parenti and Elena Velkovska (eds.), L’eucologio Barberini gr. 336: Seconda edizione riveduta con traduzione in lingua italiana. Bibliotheca “Ephemerides Liturgicae” “Subsidia” 80 (Rome: Edizioni Liturgiche, 2000), 186.

The Use of the Bible in Byzantine Liturgical Texts and Services    253 Doxology

for Yours is the dominion, and Yours is the Kingdom, and the Power, and the Glory: of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, both now and ever, and to the ages of ages.38

Mt 6:13

The same fundamental structure lies behind the two Eucharistic prayers of the Byzantine tradition, the anaphora attributed to St. Basil the Great (BAS) and the anaphora attributed to St. John Chrysostom (CHR). The anamnesis section of both BAS and CHR abound with scriptural citations and allusions, as one can easily observe by glancing at annotated texts of the two anaphorae,39 which then lead to the epiclesis section. I would like to briefly focus on a portion of the anamnesis of BAS. Crucial to the anamnesis of BAS is the incarnation and the implications of the incarnation, salvation. At the heart of the anamnesis, and as a turning point, is the following text40 which is laden with Scripture: And when the fullness of time had come, You spoke to us through Your Son Himself, through whom You created the ages. He, being the splendor of Your glory and the image of Your being, upholding all things by the word of His power, thought it not robbery to be equal with You, God and Father. But, being God before all ages, He appeared on earth and lived with humankind. Becoming incarnate from a holy Virgin, He emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, conforming to the body of our lowliness, that He might change us in the likeness of the image of His glory.

Gal 4:4, Eph 1:10 Heb 1:2 Heb 1:3 Phil 2:6 Bar 3:38 Phil 2:7 Phil 3:21

This text is representative of the use of scripture in the euchology. It is almost exclusively constructed from scriptural texts (exceptions in italics in the table), and its purpose is to connect the account of the Creation and the activity of God in the Old Testament in the preceding section of the anaphora (equally full of scriptural texts) with the effects of the incarnation in the following section (also full of scriptural texts), in what I would argue is a theological articulation of what “that He might change us in the likeness of the image of His

38  https://​w ww.goa​rch.org/​-​/​t he-​s erv​ice-​of-​t he-​crown​ing-​t he-​s erv​ice-​of-​marri​age (last visited September 26, 2020); Mark Searle and Kenneth Stevenson, Documents of Marriage Liturgy (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1992), 69. 39 See, for example, Panagiotes Trempelas, Αἱ τρεῖς Λειτουργίαι κατὰ τοὺς έν Ἀθῆναις Κώδικας (Athens: NP, 1935), 21–​194; Constantelos, “The Holy Scriptures in Greek Orthodox Worship,” 15–​38; Parenti and Velkovska, L’eucologio Barberini gr. 336, 57–​82. Adapted from Stefanos Alexopoulos, “Prayer at the Eucharist: Shifts in the Use of Scripture,” a paper delivered at the conference International Conference “Liturgical Reception of the Bible: Dimensions and Perspectives for Interdisciplinary Research,” University of Regensburg, September 25, 2015. 40 Trempelas, Λειτουργίαι (as in n. 18), 180; Parenti and Velkovska, L’Eucologio (as in n. 18), 66. English translation from https://​www.goa​rch.org/​cha​pel/​texts (March 29, 2016).

254   Stefanos Alexopoulos glory” actually means; and this is achieved through a series of scriptural quotations in the section that follows (Col 1:10, John 17:3, Titus 2:14, 1 Peter 2:9, Eph 5:26, Rom 15:16, Rom 7:6, Rom 7:14, Eph 4:10, Acts 2:24, 1 Cor 15:4, Acts 2:24, Acts 3:15, 1 Cor 15:20, Col 1:18, Heb 1:3, Rom 2:6). The Eucharist then is a celebration of salvation in Christ, as the text linking the anamnesis with the institution narrative reminds us: “As memorials of His saving passion, He has left us these gifts which we have set forth before You according to His commands.” And it is within this context that sin is mentioned, something already defeated in Christ: “to condemn sin in His flesh, so that those who died in Adam may be brought to life in Him, Your Christ” (Rom 8:3 and 1 Cor 15:22). In other words, our participation in the Eucharist celebrates salvation in Christ, the conquest and forgiveness of sin, and our participation in the Kingdom of God. The celebration of and participation in the Eucharist then is an affirmation of the reality of salvation rooted in the Divine Economy and the kenosis of the Word of God, celebrated by the Eucharistic community in the highest expression of public worship as the unity and communion of one another in the Holy Spirit, participating in the reality of salvation already present in the communion of the saints: “He acquired us for Himself, as His chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation”41 (Tit 2:14, 1 Peter 2).42

The Liturgical Hermeneutics of Scripture A very important clue as to how the Byzantines understood the hermeneutics of Scripture may be found in the prayer of the Gospel. This prayer, hailing from the liturgical tradition of Jerusalem, is recited by the celebrant at every Divine Liturgy before the reading of the Gospel: Shine in our hearts, O Master Who loves mankind, the pure light of Your divine knowledge, and open the eyes of our mind that we may comprehend the proclamations of Your Gospels. Instill in us also reverence for Your blessed commandments so that, having trampled down all carnal desires, we may lead a spiritual life, both thinking and doing all those things that are pleasing to You. For You, Christ our God, are the illumination of our souls and bodies, and to You we offer up glory, together with Your Father, Who is without beginning, and Your all-​holy, good, and life-​creating Spirit, now and forever and to the ages of ages. Amen.”43

41 Trempelas, Λειτουργίαι (as in n. 18), 181. English translation from http://​www.goa​rch.org/​cha​pel/​ litur​gica​l_​te​xts (March 29, 2016). 42 This paragraph is borrowed from Alexopoulos, “Prayer at the Eucharist: Shifts in the Use of Scripture.” 43 Ἔλλαμψον ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ἡμῶν, φιλάνθρωπε Δέσποτα, τὸ τῆς σῆς θεογνωσίας ἀκήρατον φῶς, καὶ τοὺς τῆς διανοίας ἡμῶν ὀφθαλμοὺς διάνοιξον εἰς τὴν τῶν εὐαγγελικῶν σου κηρυγμάτων κατανόησιν. Ἔνθες ἡμῖν καὶ τὸν τῶν μακαρίων σου ἐντολῶν φόβον, ἵνα τὰς σαρκικὰς ἐπιθυμίας πάσας καταπατήσαντες πνευματικὴν πολιτείαν μετέλθωμεν, πάντα τὰ πρὸς εὐαρέστησιν τὴν σὴν καὶ φρονοῦντες καὶ πράττοντες. Σὺ γὰρ εἶ ὁ φωτισμὸς τῶν ψυχῶν καὶ τῶν σωμάτων ἡμῶν, Χριστὲ ὁ Θεός, καὶ σοὶ τὴν δόξαν ἀναπέμπομεν σὺν τῷ ἀνάρχῳ σου Πατρὶ καὶ τῷ παναγίῳ καὶ ἀγαθῷ καὶ ζωοποιῷ σου Πνεύματι, νῦν καὶ ἀεὶ καὶ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. Ἀμήν. Panagiotes Trempelas, Αἱ τρεῖς Λειτουργίαι κατὰ τοὺς έν Ἀθῆναις Κώδικας (Athens: NP, 1935), 53–​54. English translation from https://​www.goa​rch. org/​cha​pel/​texts (March 31, 2017).

The Use of the Bible in Byzantine Liturgical Texts and Services    255 Based on the above prayer, I would argue that in the Byzantine liturgical context, the proclamation and reception of Scripture involves the following four movements: Inspiration—​ Comprehension—​Transformation—​Action. Obviously the scriptural text is received and viewed from the standpoint of faith, so its interpretation depends on God’s inspiration—​ the prayer asks that the Lord “shine in our hearts” and “open the eyes of our mind.” Then that leads to our comprehending the message effecting a transformation of self, demonstrated in action: “having trampled down all carnal desires, we may lead a spiritual life, both thinking and doing all those things that are pleasing to You.” And the liturgical action is directly related to this movement of Inspiration—​Comprehension—​ Transformation—​Action. The celebration of liturgy, and the Divine Liturgy in particular, not only embodies this movement, but allows for the community’s initiation, participation, and growth into the salvific message of the Gospel proclaimed, taught, interpreted, and applied.44 As we have already seen in the case of the morning Gospels and their dependent hymnography, the hymns of the Church function also as a theological commentary on the feast celebrated and the readings proclaimed. Hymns with Scripture (lections and Psalms) become intertwined in celebration of the message of the Gospel. The Royal Hours of Holy Friday, Christmas Eve, and Epiphany Eve are a great example. They are a theological-​liturgical reflection on the themes of the approaching Dominical feast that is defined by the selection of Psalms, readings from the Old and the New Testament, and hymns, each focusing on the particular events of Salvation History celebrated in each case: the Crucifixion and Resurrection, the Nativity, and the Baptism of Christ. The hymns have a special role, as not only do they offer a theological-​liturgical reflection on the upcoming feast but also they call the faithful to react to the salvific events celebrated in two ways: first, to worship God as thanksgiving for God’s love for humankind, as expressed through Christ’s birth, baptism, crucifixion, and resurrection (in each case), and second, to extend a call to personal transformation/​transfiguration, reflecting the impact of these salvific events on one’s life.45 Even the minor hours in the Byzantine liturgy of the hours become an opportunity to reflect on key moments in salvation history, such as Pentecost, the betrayal, and the Crucifixion, allowing for a miniaturized daily celebration of the liturgical year, a daily celebration of salvation history.46

Liturgical Space, Icons, and Scripture The proclamation of Scripture in the Byzantine traditions is tightly intertwined with the liturgical space it is proclaimed within (i.e., the church building and its decoration) and its liturgical framework (i.e., the liturgical celebration and its rituals). A typical church of the Byzantine tradition will have on its walls certain cycles of images. The dominical includes

44 

Adapted from Alexopoulos, “The Gospel Narrative in Byzantine Liturgy,” 239. Alexopoulos, “Οἱ Ἀκολουθίες τῶν Μεγάλων Ὡρῶν” (The Offices of the Royal Hours), Ἐκκλησία 92 (2015), 686–​701. 46  Stefanos Alexopoulos, “Anamnesis, Epiclesis, and Mimesis in the Minor Hours of the Byzantine Rite,” Worship 94 (2020), 228–​245. 45  Stefanos

256   Stefanos Alexopoulos narrative images depicting scenes from the life of Christ, from the Annunciation to the Ascension and Pentecost, a pictorial presentation of salvation history. The liturgical cycle includes images related to the liturgy celebrated within the walls of the church, such as the image of Christ “Pantocrator” image in the dome, the Virgin Mary with Christ in the altar apse, and the communion of the apostles in the apse. The sanctoral cycle includes a narrative cycle with images from the life of the Virgin Mary, and images of saints, sometimes also narrative cycles of their life. Finally, the narthex oftentimes includes narrative images and figures from the Old Testament. These images are to be understood as a pictorial presentation of the Divine Economy.47 These images affect the worshiper in two ways: a practical and a theological/​spiritual way. On the practical level, this pictorial presentation of the Divine Economy is an indispensable educational tool, as it impresses on the mind of the beholders the events of the life of Christ; one “reads” the Scriptures by seeing these images, even more important at a time when those who could read were the minority.48 This pictorial presentation of the Divine Economy is essentially the Scriptures in images. On the theological/​spiritual level, standing in a church building adorned with images, the worshiper finds himself/​herself at the center, surrounded by the saints and scenes from Christ’s life, and gazing on the image of Christ Pantocrator in the dome. The purpose of the space, the iconography, and the ritual is for the faithful to be transformed. The sanctoral cycle of image incorporates the faithful in the communion of saints; the narrative images of the life of Christ cultivates and feeds his/​her faith, and through the liturgical action and participation the worshiper becomes a partaker of that Christ, is transformed and embraced by him, becoming a bearer of Christ.49 The Gospel book itself is adorned with images, one cover with an image of the crucifixion, the other with the image of the resurrection, identifying these two events of salvation history as key to the Christian faith, and in a way summarizing the contents of the Gospel book. It is treated with great honor; it is placed on the Holy Table, it is processed with every honor, it is venerated, for it is the visual connection with the proclamation of the good news and points to and reveals the mystery of Christ. Alexander Rentel explains the role of the Gospel book in Byzantine liturgy: That the gospel readings themselves reveal the presence of Jesus Christ, the Son of God the Father, in the liturgical assembly can be seen in an ancient ritual described in a liturgical

47  Henry Maguire, “The Cycle of Images in the Church,” in Linda Safran, ed., Heaven on Earth: Art and the Church in Byzantium (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1998), 121–​151. Thomas Mathews, “The Sequel to Nicaea II in Byzantine Church Decoration,” The Perkins School of Theology Journal 41.3 (1988), 11–​21; Alfredo Tradigo, Icons and Saints of the Eastern Orthodox Church (Los Angeles: The J. Paul Getty Museum, 2004); Evan Freeman, “The Lives of Christ and the Virgin in Byzantine Art” (https://​smart​hist​ory.org/​chr​ist-​vir​gin-​byzant​ine-​art/​?fbc​lid=​IwA​R2lj​JzX-​XcN-​ tufjZOOf3go2PKoK​OFbR​UvIp​WNRl​3OZ7​_​UOX​Fgyz​Raf-​ro; last visited December 5, 2020). See also George Galavaris, The Icon in the Life of the Church (Leiden: Brill, 1981); Leonid Ouspensky, Theology of the Icon, 2 vols. (Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s Press, 1992); Christoph Schönborn, God’s Human Face: The Christ-​Icon (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1994); Maximos Constas, The Art of Seeing: Paradox and Perception in Orthodox Iconography (Alhambra: Sebastian Press, 2014). 48  Mathews, “The Sequel to Nicaea II,” 16. 49  Mathews, “The Sequel to Nicaea II,” 19.

The Use of the Bible in Byzantine Liturgical Texts and Services    257 document from around the turn of the first millennium, the so-​called Typikon of the Great Church. The Typikon of the Great Church, a book of rubrics that described the liturgical celebration in the patriarchal cathedral in Constantinople, speaks of an enthronement of the Gospel book on the synthronon, which was the patriarchal throne set up in the apse of the cathedral. One the eve of the feast of the Nativity of Christ, this Typikon prescribes that “a Gospel book [be] placed on the synthronon and another on the altar table.” This enthronement took place during the singing of the Trisagion, at that point of the Divine Liturgy when the patriarch and concelebrating clergy ascended the synthronon and took their seats there to listen to the daily scripture readings. The Typikon further directs that the patriarch must sit to the left of the Gospel, in a place normally reserved for a clergyman of lower rank than the patriarch. In this ritual act the solemn enthronement of the Gospel book not only proclaims the presence of Christ but also his presidency through his word within the liturgical assembly. Although this ritual is no longer in use today, the Gospel book rests on the altar table, is elaborately decorated, and is regularly venerated and kissed by the faithful both as an object of pious devotion and a testimony to God’s continued presence in that community of believers.50

Conclusion The Bible is at the center of the life of the Orthodox Church and it occupies a place of paramount importance in the worship of the church. It would not be a hyperbole to say that the Bible is everywhere, permeates all aspects of the life of the church, especially its liturgical life. The Scriptures have their origins in the life of the church, particularly in the liturgical gatherings of the very early Christians, are proclaimed in the liturgical synaxis, and are interpreted in the context of the living tradition of the Orthodox church, expressed in its liturgical texts and rituals, lived in its liturgical celebrations. At the heart of the Scriptures, is the proclamation of salvation in Christ; at the heart of liturgy, is the celebration of that salvation in Christ.

Bibliography Ἱερουργεῖν τὸ Εὐαγγέλιον. Ἡ Ἁγία Γραφὴ στὴν Ὀρθόδοξη Έκκλησία. Πρακτικὰ Ε’ Πανελληνίου Λειτουργικοῦ Συμποσίου [Ministering the Gospel: Holy Scriptures in the Orthodox Church. Acta of the Fifth Panhellenic Liturgical Conference]. Ποιμαντικὴ Βιβλιοθήκη 10 (Athens: Church of Greece, 2004). Alexopoulos, Stefanos. “When a Column Speaks: The Liturgy of the Christian Parthenon,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 69 (2015), 159–​178. Alexopoulos, Stefanos. “Anamnesis, Epiclesis, and Mimesis in the Minor Hours of the Byzantine Rite,” Worship 94 (2020), 228–​245.

50  Alexander Rentel, “Byzantine and Slavic Orthodoxy,” in Geoffrey Wainwright and Karen Westerfield Tucker, eds., The Oxford History of Christian Worship (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 254–​306, here 277.

258   Stefanos Alexopoulos Alexopoulos, Stefanos. “The Gospel Narrative in Byzantine Liturgy,” in History and Theology in the Gospel Narratives, eds. T. Nicklas, K. W. Niebuhr, M. Seleznev (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2020), 235–​246. Alexopoulos, Stefanos, and Bilalis Anatolikiotes, Dionysios. “Towards a History of Printed Liturgical Books in the Modern Greek State: An Initial Survey,” Ecclesia Orans 34 (2017), 421–​460. Braga, C., and Pistoia, A. (eds.). La liturgie, interprète de l’écriture II: Dans les compositions liturgiques, prières et chants. Bibliotheca “Ephemerides Liturgicae” “Subsidia” 126 (Rome: Edizioni Liturgiche, 2003). Constantelos, Demetrios. “The Holy Scriptures in Greek Orthodox Worship,” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 12 (1966), 7–​83. Constas, Maximos. The Art of Seeing: Paradox and Perception in Orthodox Iconography (Alhambra: Sebastian Press, 2014). Dolezal, Mary-​Lyon. “The Middle Byzantine Lectionary: Textual and Pictorial Expressions of Liturgical Ritual” (Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1991). Engberg, Sysse, Høeg, Carsten, and Zuntz, Günther (eds.). Prophetologium I–​II. Monumenta Musicae Byzantinae: Lectionaria 1 (Hauniae: Munksgaard, 1939–​1981). Engberg, Sysse. “The Greek Old Testament Lectionary as a Liturgical Book,” Cahiers de l’Institut du Moyen Âge Grec et Latin 54 (1987), 39–​48. Engberg, Sysse. “The Prophetologion and the Triple-​Lection Theory: The Genesis of a Liturgical Book,” Bollettino della Badia Greca di Grottaferrata 3 (2006), 67–​91. Engberg, Sysse. “The Needle in the Haystack: Searching for Evidence of the Eucharistic Old Testament Lection in the Constantinopolitan Rite,” Bollettino della Badia Greca di Grottaferrata 13 (2016), 47–​60. Frøyshov, Stig Symeon. “Byzantine Rite,” The Canterbury Dictionary of Hymnology. Canterbury Press, accessed http://​www.hymnol​ogy.co.uk/​b/​byzant​ine-​rite. Frøyshov, Stig Symeon. “Rite of Jerusalem,” The Canterbury Dictionary of Hymnology. Canterbury Press, accessed http://​www.hymnol​ogy.co.uk/​r/​rite-​of-​jerusa​lem. Frøyshov, Stig Symeon. “Greek Hymnody,” The Canterbury Dictionary of Hymnology. Canterbury Press, accessed http://​www.hymnol​ogy.co.uk/​g/​greek-​hymn​ody. Frøyshov, Stig Symeon. “Rite of Constantinople,” The Canterbury Dictionary of Hymnology. Canterbury Press, http://​www.hymnol​ogy.co.uk/​r/​rite-​of-​con​stan​tino​ple. Galavaris, George. The Icon in the Life of the Church (Leiden: Brill, 1981). Gibson, Samuel. The Apostolos: The Acts and Epistles in Byzantine Liturgical Manuscripts. Texts and Studies 18 (Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2018). Giraudo, Cesare. La struttura letteraria della Preghiera Eucaristica: Saggi sulla genesi letteraria di una forma: Toda veterotestamentaria, Beraka giudaic, anafora cristiana. Analecta Biblica 92 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1981). Jordan, Christopher. “The Textual Tradition of the Gospel of John in Greek Gospel Lectionaries from the Middle Byzantine Period” (PhD diss., University of Birmingham, 2010). Lowden, John. The Jaharis Gospel Lectionary: The Story of a Byzantine Book (New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2009). Krueger, Derek, and Nelson, Robert (eds.). The New Testament in Byzantium (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2016). Magdalino, Paul, and Nelson, Robert (eds.). The Old Testament in Byzantium (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2010).

The Use of the Bible in Byzantine Liturgical Texts and Services    259 Maguire, Henry. “The Cycle of Images in the Church,” in Heaven on Earth: Art and the Church in Byzantium, ed. Linda Safran (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1998), 121–​151. Mathews, Thomas. “The Sequel to Nicaea II in Byzantine Church Decoration,” The Perkins School of Theology Journal 41.3 (1988), 11–​21. Freeman, Evan. “The Lives of Christ and the Virgin in Byzantine Art.” https://​smart​hist​ory. org/​chr​ist-​vir​gin-​byzant​ine-​art/​?fbc​lid=​IwA​R2lj​JzX-​XcN-​tufjZOOf3go2PKoK​OFbR​UvIp​ WNRl​3OZ7​_U ​ OX​Fgyz​Raf-​ro. Miller, James. “The Prophetologion: The Old Testament of Byzantine Christianity?,” in The Old Testament in Byzantium, eds. Paul Magdalino and Robert Nelson (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2010), 55–​77. Ouspensky, Leonid. Theology of the Icon. 2 vols. (Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s Press, 1992). Parenti, Stefano, and Velkovska, Elena (eds.). L’eucologio Barberini gr. 336. Seconda edizione riveduta con traduzione in lingua italiana. Bibliotheca “Ephemerides Liturgicae” “Subsidia” 80 (Rome: Edizioni Liturgiche, 2000). Parpulov, Georgi. “Psalters and Personal Piety in Byzantium,” in The Old Testament in Byzantium, eds. Paul Magdalino and Robert Nelson (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2010), 77–​105. Parpulov, Georgi. Toward a History of Byzantine Psalters, ca. 850–​1350 AD (Plovdiv, 2014). Pentiuc, Eugen. The Old Testament in Eastern Orthodox Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014). Rapp, Claudia, and Külzer, Andreas (eds). The Bible in Byzantium: Appropriation, Adaptation, Interpretation (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2019). Rentel, Alexander. “Byzantine and Slavic Orthodoxy,” in The Oxford History of Christian Worship, eds. Geoffrey Wainwright and Karen Westerfield Tucker (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 254–​306. Royé, Stefan. The Inner Cohesion between the Bible and the Fathers in Byzantine Tradition: Towards a Codico-​Liturgical Approach to the Biblical and Patristic Manuscripts (Tilburg, 2007). Royé, Stefan. “An Assessment of Byzantine Codex and Catalogue Research: Towards the Construction of a New Series of Catalogues of Byzantine Manuscripts,” Sacris Erudiri 47 (2008), 5–​144. Schönborn, Christoph. God’s Human Face: The Christ-​Icon (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1994). Spronk, Klaas, Rouwhorst, Gerard, and Royé, Stefan. A Catalogue of Byzantine Manuscripts in Their Liturgical Context: Challenges and Perspectives Collected Papers Resulting from the Expert Meeting of the Catalogue of Byzantine Manuscripts Programme Held at the PThU in Kampen, the Netherlands on 6th–​7th November 2009. CBM–​Subsidia 1 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2013), 15–​22. Strunk, Oliver. “The Byzantine Office at Hagia Sophia,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 9–​10 (1956), 177–​202. Taft, Robert. The Liturgy of the Hours in East and West. 2nd Rev. Ed. (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1993). Taft, Robert. “Were There Once Old Testament Readings in the Byzantine Divine Liturgy? Apropos of an Article by Sysse Gudrun Engberg,” Bollettino della Badia Greca di Grottaferrata 8 (2011), 271–​311.

260   Stefanos Alexopoulos Triacca, A. M., and Pistoia, A. (eds.). La liturgie, interprète de l’écriture I: Les Lectures bibliques pour les dimanches et fêtes. Bibliotheca “Ephemerides Liturgicae” “Subsidia” 119 (Rome: Edizioni Liturgiche, 2002). Tradigo, Alfredo. Icons and Saints of the Eastern Orthodox Church (Los Angeles: The J. Paul Getty Museum, 2004). Vasileiades, Petros. “Ὁ βιβλικὸς χαρακτήρας τῆς Ὀρθόδοξης Λατρείας” (The Biblical Character of Orthodox Worship), in Ἱερουργεῖν τὸ Εὐαγγέλιον: Ἡ Ἁγία Γραφὴ στὴν Ὀρθόδοξη Λατρεία (Athens: Apostoliki Diakonia, 2004), 35–​66.

Chapter 16

Reading Scrip t u re wi t h t he Chu rch Fat h e rs Alexis Torrance Introduction: Framing the Problem The field of patristic exegesis is happily a growing one (e.g., Kannengiesser 2006). On the surface, expanding interest in the field offers a signal opportunity to Orthodox scholarship to bring its familial respect for the Scriptural interpretation of the church fathers to bear on the larger study of the Bible. Before rushing to celebrate, however, we must pause to consider a number of issues. First, has the field of patristic exegesis really found a home as a subdiscipline in biblical studies itself, or is it mainly a property of patristic or early Christian studies, and thus still of only minor or fleeting importance to biblical scholars? Barring a few exceptions, overall, the latter appears to be the case. Patristic exegesis may be generating significant attention, but not on the whole within the guild of biblical scholarship proper. Second, it is also worth raising the question of why exactly patristic exegesis has undergone a revival, especially if its impact on the discipline of biblical studies is rarely discernible. On the one hand, interest in patristic exegesis accompanies a broader hermeneutical turn in the humanities, where recognition of the inescapable contextual frameworks that govern even the most seemingly objective modes of historical-critical inquiry when reading the Bible in turn make us more sympathetic to the possibility of alternative frameworks for reading the text. On the other hand, patristic exegesis can also be construed as a convenient way to sidestep, in the name of allegory, either historical-critical scholarship as a whole, or the trappings of “biblical fundamentalism.” Such an escapist impulse, however, brings with it its own problems, and can sometimes amount to an attempt to sidestep history itself, drawing, in the process, on a concept of patristic exegesis that is generically conceived and ultimately unfaithful to the understandings of Scripture found in the church fathers. From an Orthodox perspective, the question of reading Scripture with the church fathers is on one level not even a question: an Orthodox understanding of Scripture’s meaning without the mediation of the holy exegetes of the text in the bosom of the Church (both individually and collectively) is inconceivable. However, beyond this, one can distinguish the question of reading specific passages or books of the Bible with the church fathers (where

262   Alexis Torrance there could be a measure of disagreement on the precise meaning), from the question of how, drawing on the church fathers, to understand and approach the text of the Bible as such. It is this second matter, what we might call the doctrine of Scripture, that is of primary interest in this chapter. Getting at this issue gets in turn at the heart of the ongoing tension between patristic as well as Orthodox readings of the Bible, and the discipline of biblical studies. This is because each represents, broadly speaking, a complex interpretive tradition that may indeed overlap with the other from time to time, but is also, on a host of issues, fundamentally at odds with the other. If we are surprised by this, it might be because we tend not to mark out modern biblical criticism, in the words of Michael Legaspi, “as an interpretive tradition in its own right—​one framed by particular historical contexts, metaphysical commitments, political aspirations, methodological prescriptions, and institutional realities” (Legaspi 2016, 196). And yet it is, just as the patristic and Orthodox tradition of reading the Bible is its own broad interpretive tradition. To take the discussion further, at least on the matter of articulating a capacious but also cohesive account of how precisely Scripture is understood by the church fathers (which in turn can fundamentally inform an Orthodox account), I would like to be unfashionable for a moment and insist that to do so involves acquiescing from the outset to the idea that Scripture is indeed a coherent whole, a divine or “God-​breathed” gift whose words bears witness in their totality to the Word himself. No amount of specific correspondences between, say, the exegesis of John Chrysostom and the conclusions of historical-​critical scholarship, can compensate for this basic sense of the overall sacredness of the biblical text. This is a phenomenon lamented by Georges Florovsky, when he writes, “most of us have lost the integrity of the scriptural mind, even if some bits of biblical phraseology are retained” (Florovsky 1972, 10). The concept of the “scriptural mind” is perhaps more controversial now than in Florovsky’s day, and yet for the Orthodox I believe it is no less necessary. As Florovsky himself argues, however, this concept does not amount to a crass or unsophisticated approach to the complexities of the biblical text. As he explains in another place: “the Scriptures transmit and preserve the Word of God precisely in the idiom of man. . . . There is always some human interpretation in any Scriptural presentation of the divine Word” (Florovsky 1972, 27–​28). Moreover, against the penchant for allegory among some of his peers, he insists on the historical dimension of the text: “The Bible is history, not a system of belief, and should not be used as a summa theologiae. At the same time, it is not history of human belief, but the history of the divine revelation” (Florovsky 1972, 29). So, for Florovsky (who believed deeply in the need for the Orthodox to read Scripture with the church fathers), the Bible is both a sacred and cohesive whole, a perennial witness to God, but it is at the same time a historical text whose witness is less concerned with abstracted and disembodied “truths” than with God’s salvific work and providence in history, whose ultimate orientation is Christological and eschatological (Florovsky 1972, 35). In what follows, I will examine in turn three related and foundational approaches to the biblical text in the early and medieval period. My goal is to lay out some of the underlying principles of biblical exegesis that drive so much of the patristic, Byzantine, as well as Orthodox approach to the Bible. In doing so, I hope to showcase not only what some might see as the “narrowly” Christ-​focused nature of patristic exegesis, but also its simultaneous breadth of vision, a breadth that while uncompromising in its overall direction to and from the incarnate Word, is not thereby escapist or necessarily inhospitable to honest

Reading Scripture with the Church Fathers    263 and serious grappling with the biblical text in other interpretive traditions. The three figures I will concentrate on are Origen (via the Cappadocian Philokalia), Maximus the Confessor, and Gregory Palamas.

How Do You Read? The Contribution of Origen The controversial aspects of Origen’s thought cannot blind us to his towering significance as a defender and interpreter of Scripture. This was clearly recognized by Basil of Caesarea and Gregory of Nazianzus, who together famously compiled a collection of Origen’s texts known as the Philokalia. Much of this collection has to do with the nature of Scripture and its interpretation. Without becoming embroiled in a debate over Origen’s overall theological legitimacy in the Orthodox tradition, it can at least safely be asserted that Origen’s understanding of what the Bible is and how it should be approached was considered not only useful but virtually normative for the later tradition taken as a whole. Using the Cappadocian Philokalia as a testament to this, I wish to highlight several aspects of this approach, particularly those aspects that tend to receive less attention or emphasis in the popular understanding of Origen’s exegesis as pure allegory. Origen (ca. 184–​253) is among the first to give a detailed account of the whole of Scripture as a revelation of Christ. In fact, when faced with the confusing complexity of the Old Testament, he gives the problem a Christological solution: “there could be no clear proofs of the inspiration of the ancient Scriptures before the coming of Christ. But the coming of Jesus brought men who might suspect that the law and the prophets were not Divine to the plain avowal that they were written with help from heaven” (Philokalia 1.6). There was a basic admission, in other words, that taken simply as a bare text, Scripture is hard if not impossible to fathom or even to justify to our rational minds as divinely inspired. Origen is at pains to underscore, however, that this is a problem not with the text, but with ourselves, a problem that will persist if we do not (1) recognize and reproach our own hermeneutical limitations, marred by our weaknesses, and (2) read the Scriptures through the revelation of Christ. Thus he can write that just as the doctrine of God’s providence is unimpeded by our ignorance of its mysterious workings, “so neither is the Divine character of Scripture upon the whole impaired, because our weakness cannot in each phrase approach the hidden glory of the truths concealed in poor and contemptible language” (Philokalia 1.7). The basic attitude toward the reading of Scripture, especially its difficult or obscure passages must, for Origen, be one of faith: “if in reading the Scripture you should sometimes stumble at a meaning which is a fair stone of stumbling and rock of offence, blame yourself. . . . First believe, and you will find beneath what is counted a stumbling-​block much gain in godliness” (Philokalia 1.28). He sees no problem in admitting ignorance of a given passage’s meaning, of saying, as he puts it, “we have mysteries which we do not understand” (Philokalia 1.9). He adds that there is a need for grace to know “the mind of Christ,” even as it is present in the clarity of the Gospels, let alone in difficult passages of the Law (Philokalia 1.10). In fact, if Scripture is read with faith but nothing is immediately understood, he still considers such reading profitable (Philokalia 12.1–​2).

264   Alexis Torrance Together with an overarching Christological understanding of the text of Scripture, as well as the humility and faith needed to approach it, another fundamental characteristic of the successful exegete, for Origen, is prayer: “prayer is the most necessary qualification for the understanding of Divine things” (Philokalia, 13.4). We are thus faced with a set of prerequisites for the reading of Scripture in Origen that do not necessarily chime well with those found in the predominant historical-​critical method of biblical studies. Origen insists that before we even break open the pages of Scripture, we need to understand the text as an integral whole, “closed up and sealed with the key of David” (Philokalia, 2.1), and that “not a single tittle of the sacred Scriptures is without something of the wisdom of God” (Philokalia, 1.28). We then must venture toward the revelatory text humbly, prayerfully, and faithfully. Without such preparation, Origen sees the biblical interpreter as at best condemned to catching “no more than the faint echoes of the Divine words” (Philokalia, 2.2), and at worst becoming a judge and blamer of God, the ultimate author of the text, inventing another god to suit the interpreter’s own corrupted desires (Philokalia, 1.29). Having established Origen’s overall impression of the Bible as divinely inspired in its totality—​he even calls it “one book” or “one word” (Philokalia 5.4), and “one song” (Philokalia 6.2)—​and the preparatory marks of the true exegete he emphasizes, we can turn to his specific method for reading and analyzing a given text. Famously, Origen proposes three ways to look at the same Scriptural text, using the metaphor of flesh, soul, and spirit, where “the primary sense” (i.e., the literal, historical sense) is designated by Scripture’s “flesh”, “the more advanced by its soul, and the perfect by the spiritual law, which has a shadow of the good things to come” (Philokalia 1.11). Parsing out different senses of the same text is not an invention of Origen. After all, Paul himself deploys typological readings in his exegesis, and the ancients in general were not unfamiliar with allegory. That said, developing an explicit hermeneutical framework to handle the intricacies of the Scriptural text owes much to Origen. The ascending hierarchy of this threefold approach, where flesh or the historical/​literal level of the text is placed at the bottom rung of the hermeneutical exercise, has been met with both deep consternation and great approbation among exegetes to the present day. Among those concerned that Origen functionally does away with the historical meaning of the text, his case is not helped by the fact that he further argues that some biblical texts simply do not have a fleshly or corporeal sense at all, only a “psychic” or “spiritual” one (Philokalia 1.12). By the same token, champions of allegory celebrate this aspect of Origen’s approach as a means of bypassing or preemptively neutralizing the perceived threat to the faith of the historical-​critical method. Neither side does Origen full justice, however, especially where we find him meditating on the historicity of the text. If there are some texts that cannot, according to Origen, have a plain literal meaning—​some examples he gives include God walking in the garden of Eden, references to mythical creatures, and the command to pluck out one’s right eye—​these are notable above all for their rarity. By no means does Origen intend to upend the basic historical veracity of Scripture, nor lay the foundations for an extreme historical skepticism regarding the events it narrates in favor of pure allegory. He sees the historical problems posed by the text as a providential “stumbling block” deliberately placed by the hand of God to stir the reader’s mind toward a deeper and higher mode of contemplation, yet at the same time he argues that “it was the Spirit’s purpose to make even the vesture of things spiritual,

Reading Scripture with the Church Fathers    265 I mean the ‘corporeal’ part of the Scriptures, many ways not unprofitable, but capable of benefiting the majority of readers according to their capacity” (Philokalia 1.15). The basic profitability and even truthfulness of the literal biblical narrative is never dismissed by Origen, despite popular opinion. Thus he writes: That no one may suppose us to make a sweeping statement and maintain that no history is real, because some is unreal; and that no part of the Law is to be literally observed, because a particular enactment in its wording happens to be unreasonable or impossible; or that what is recorded of the Saviour is true only in a spiritual sense; or that we are not to keep any law or commandments of Him: that we may not incur such an imputation, we must add that we are quite convinced of the historical truth of certain passages; for instance, that Abraham was buried in the double cave in Hebron, as also Isaac and Jacob, and one wife of each of these; and that Sichem was given to Joseph for his portion, and that Jerusalem is the capital of Judea, wherein God’s temple was built by Solomon, and countless other statements. For those things which are true historically are many more than those connected with them which contain merely a spiritual sense. (Philokalia 1.20)

One could still argue, of course, that Origen’s ambivalence toward the “flesh” or literal sense of Scripture, however slight, unwittingly opens the floodgates for the total undermining of the historicity of the text. But this is clearly not Origen’s intention. The fact that he singles out rather specific elements in the biblical narrative for historical ratification here (like the double cave tomb in Hebron) suggests that the overall narrative arc of Scripture is not even up for discussion in Origen’s mind. We see this concern for historicity at play elsewhere too, for instance in Contra Celsum 4.41 and Homilies on Genesis 2.2, where Origen is at pains to defend against the sneering Celsus the literal existence of Noah’s ark and its capacity to hold all that it did. Origen the exegete is no historical relativist. He even shows interest in what could be seen as a form of scholarly enquiry to bolster his position on historical details. The example of Noah’s ark is helpful in this regard too, since in his Homilies on Genesis 2.2 he discusses “having learned from men who were skilled and versed in the traditions of the Hebrews” that the measurements of the ark given by Moses reflect Egyptian computational methods, and thus that the ark was a lot larger than one might think. He ends his reflection on the ark’s historicity thus: “Let these things be said, as much as pertains to the historical account, against those who endeavor to impugn the Scriptures of the Old Testament as containing certain things which are impossible and irrational.” We must, in short, be rather careful to interpret what Origen means when he elsewhere seems to dismiss the literal level of the text. To him, the relatively rare and providential “stumbling-​blocks” of historical or literal impossibility in the text can hardly give license to the hyper-​allegorization of Scripture that so often passes as the approach of Origen.1 The threefold approach to the biblical text, especially when the corporeal or literal level is not summarily dismissed, lends itself to a constructive interaction and dialogue with

1  For this reason I decided not to include a discussion of the “Alexandrian” versus “Antiochene” approaches to Scripture, which is in any case amply treated by others. While differences of emphasis do certainly emerge (some patristic exegetes being more historical, some more allegorical), these differences are not generally as pronounced, still less mutually exclusive, as many assume.

266   Alexis Torrance the historical-critical method. True, the terms on which this dialogue takes place would doubtless be unsatisfactory to most proponents of biblical studies (since the flesh is always subject to the spirit in Origen), but there is nevertheless in Origen’s approach an opening for bringing to bear a variety of exegetical tools and even interpretive traditions for an ever-​deeper appreciation of the text. What those tools and traditions can afford, however, would only ever be preliminary, and would ultimately need to be submitted for approval to “the mind of Christ” that governs the text as a whole. Furthermore, other than Origen’s conception of the overarching harmony of the biblical text around the revelation of Christ, his key to interpreting Scripture is not a collection of data from extrinsic disciplines (much as he might make occasional use of, say, etymology or cosmology), but Scripture itself. He ascribes the principle of Scripture being its own best and necessary interpreter to a Jewish teacher. He describes the principle as “a very pleasing tradition respecting all Divine Scripture in general” whereby the separate books of the Bible are like locked-​up rooms in one house whose keys are dispersed before different rooms. To interpret a given book or text, in other words, one must find that text’s “key” not in extrinsic disciplines, but in another part of Scripture (Philokalia 2.3). Scripture interprets Scripture, and thus the first port of call when confronted with textual stumbling-​blocks is Scripture itself. This is what Christ’s command to “search the Scriptures” (John 5:39) implies for Origen. If a text recounts something that appears impossible, its real meaning is discovered exegetically first and foremost by “comparing parallel passages scattered up and down Scripture” (Philokalia 1.21). One could argue that Origen posits a form of “canonical criticism” when viewing the biblical text that tends to override other hermeneutical possibilities. Conceiving the Bible as a canonical whole that cannot be dismembered except at the interpreter’s peril is ingrained in Origen’s understanding of Scripture. Simply put, “Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35), and so if one part is divided and set against another, then the result, however brilliant, is an exegetical failure. This is because to divide Scripture from itself is to rend the seamless garment of Christ: “the garments of the Word are the phrases of the Scripture; the Divine thoughts are clothed in these expressions” (Philokalia, 15.19). We have seen that from Origen is bequeathed to the Cappadocian fathers and their heirs a multilayered tradition of understanding and approaching Scripture. This tradition views Scripture as a complete whole to be reverenced as sacred even down to the last syllable, whose mysteries are unlocked to the humble, prayerful, and faithful exegete who seeks to discover the flesh, soul, and spirit of the text by many means, but above all by interpreting one Scriptural text with another. Ignorance of the meaning of difficult texts is no vice, and is far better than a false knowledge that misinterprets or excises Scripture’s “stumbling-​ blocks” to suit one’s own ends. But importantly, while Scripture is an integrated whole for Origen, this does not make it “self-​sufficient,” and while Scripture is the best interpreter of Scripture, this is not the same as saying that Scripture is “self-​interpreting.” For Scripture is still subject to its author; it belongs to another who holds and must hand over the means (the master “key of David”) for its correct interpretation. Hence the importance of the Christological dimension, Scripture as the “words of the Word.” In Origen, this is brought out on a number of occasions (as I have highlighted), but is not fully developed. Its further and clearer articulation awaits the masterful hermeneutical synthesis of St Maximus the Confessor.

Reading Scripture with the Church Fathers    267

The Words of the Word: Scripture in Maximus St. Maximus the Confessor (ca. 580–​662) offers an approach to the Bible that in many respects takes its lead from what has just been described in the previous section. He has, of course, inherited more than simply the distilled views of Origen, most especially a stronger ascetic and monastic impulse toward exegesis, a deep appreciation for the theology of the Cappadocian Fathers (especially Gregory the Theologian) and Dionysius the Areopagite, as well as a fervent devotion to the doctrinal positions of Chalcedonian orthodoxy. All of these elements, and doubtless more besides, color and shape Maximus’s understanding of the biblical text. As Constas notes, “Maximos the Confessor’s interpretation of Scripture is in many ways the summation of the entire patristic exegetical tradition” (Constas 2018, 37). The governing category of Maximus’s theology as a whole, not least his view of Scripture, is “the mystery of Christ.” Again, as Constas puts it, for Maximus: Biblical interpretation is an attempt to explore the hidden facets of this mystery [of Christ]. It aims to discover the larger meanings of narratives, symbols, and their organic interconnection, engaging cosmology, anthropology, salvation history, ethics, and ecclesiology in light of the mystery of the incarnate Word. (Constas 2018, 50)

This overriding focus on the incarnate Word is clearer and more sustained in Maximus than in Origen, even if much of the imagery deployed by Maximus gets its beginnings in Origen. Scripture as the “garments of the Word” is a good example. In his extensive meditation on the Transfiguration of Christ in Ambiguum 10, Maximus analyzes this notion at some length. The garments of the Word illuminated by divine light represent two books: the book of nature and the book of Scripture through which the Logos is revealed for those with eyes to see. Origen had likewise made the connection between reading Scripture and “reading” nature or creation as two divinely inspired and inscribed books, but does not develop the theme in such detail. For Maximus, Scripture as the garment of the Word “makes known the dignity of the one who wears it” (Ambiguum 10.29). Maximus insists on the equality of the natural and written laws on the basis of their common Logos. The written law is thus “like another world, constituted by all that has been wisely uttered within it, having its own heaven, earth, and what comes between them, by which I mean ethical, natural, and theological philosophy” (Ambiguum 10.31). We find again here the emphasis on Scripture as a complete whole, a world unto itself, whose profitable contemplation demands as a prerequisite “ethical, natural, and theological philosophy,” which he summarizes elsewhere as comprising “the love of God” (Ambiguum 37). Both the natural and the written law simultaneously “reveal and conceal the same Word” and “when we say that the words of Holy Scripture are ‘garments,’ we understand from this that their inner meanings are the ‘fleshes’ of the Word” (Ambiguum 10.31). The incarnate Word is the firm subject of all Scripture for Maximus: its words are his words. They are even described (again, drawing on Origen) in terms of a kind of enfleshing of the Logos, “who for our sake became like us and came to us through the body, and likewise grew thick in syllables and letters” (Ambiguum 10.32). This “incarnation,” however,

268   Alexis Torrance becomes ineffectual or rather destructive if those syllables and letters are not referred by the interpreter back to the Logos: “When the letter is desired only for itself, it tends to kill the indwelling Word in those who are subject to such desire” (Ambiguum 10.32). The theme returns in Ambiguum 33, where Maximus grapples with the line “the Logos becomes thick” from Gregory the Theologian’s Oration on the Nativity, seeing it pointing first and foremost to the Incarnation itself (the Logos taking human nature upon himself), next the words of Scripture, and lastly the concealed presence of the Logos in creation through the “logoi of beings.” Some commentators like to see Maximus proposing “three incarnations” here, but this might be an overstatement. While he is comfortable equating the natural and written revelations of the Logos in terms of their dignity and importance, he never equates these two with the actual Incarnation itself, toward which and from which his whole theology flows. It is in fact the incarnate Christ who serves as anchor, guarantor, and purpose of the natural and written law. This orientation of Scripture toward the incarnate Word can be seen when Maximus warns against focusing only on the “garments” of Scripture (the letter) and ignoring its “body” (its inner meanings). Rather than being a straightforward appeal for allegorical readings at the expense of literal ones, it is an appeal to keep the interpreter’s focus on Christ: “otherwise there may come a time when we are caught having nothing, since in our urge to possess these things [the garments] we failed to take hold of the Word” (Ambiguum 10.33). He compares this state of affairs to the Egyptian woman seizing Joseph’s garments and being left only with them, while the true object of her desire flees. For Maximus, if the exegete does not have real love for the incarnate Word, reading Scripture will only lead to the same fate. There is a temptation to see Maximus’s consistent language of the outer and inner meanings of Scripture in terms of a disdain for the literal or historical level of the text in favor of allegory, but when his Christocentric impulse is borne in mind, this need not be the case. Certainly, the lower is subjected to the higher in his approach, but not so as to abolish or relativize the lower. As he writes, “that which in the literal account took place in the past, is always standing before us being mystically present in contemplation” (To Thalassius 49.4). In fact, accessing the “inner meaning” of a given Scriptural text is the only sure means of properly appreciating its outer or surface meaning too. As he writes, “if the meaning of the whole of divine Scripture is properly and piously smoothed out, the disagreements perceived on the literal level of the text will be seen to contain nothing contradictory or inconsistent” (Ambiguum 21). Similarly, Maximus even adapts philosophical categories to the “general principle of scriptural interpretation” which he sees as enacted in a “tenfold manner” via study for a given biblical text of its place, time, genus, person, and rank; relevance for practical, natural, and theological philosophy; and its import for the present age (type) and future age (truth). These ten categories are all considered a required component for biblical understanding, and they are laid out in an ascending hierarchy. Crucially, they altogether form one principle of interpretation, with the first five categories (corresponding to the literal level of the text) leading to application of the text to the interpreter’s way of life (the next three categories), which itself is divided into our present condition and our future condition. That one principle is, he says, the Logos himself: Therefore the first five modes, through the multiform contemplation to which they are subject, are gathered together into practical, natural, and theological philosophy and these three

Reading Scripture with the Church Fathers    269 are further gathered into the modes of present and future, that is, type and truth. Present and future, in turn, are gathered up in the beginning, that is, in the “Word who is in the beginning” (John 1:1) who enables the worthy to experience and see Him, for, in the manner described above, they diligently pursued their course to Him, and it was for Him that they transformed into a monad what for their sakes had become a decad. (Ambiguum 37)

This all might seem impenetrable at first glance, but what Maximus is trying to articulate is that the proper reading of Scripture includes the faithful reading of the historical or literal level of the text (found in the first five categories/​modes of contemplation), but this must be combined with, and lead up to, active, even ascetic pursuit of the Word. Then all discrete modes of scriptural exegesis are seen to be “transformed into a monad,” that is, they all converge on the focal point of the incarnate Word (who “for their sakes had become a decad,” i.e., had taken on all the tenfold categories of place, time, genus, etc., through his incarnation). The emphasis in Maximus on being “led up” via Scripture to its divine author can be characterized as an “anagogical” approach to the Bible. As Constas puts it, “for Maximos, anagogy is thus a comprehensive term or process, under which other exegetical techniques and practices—​such as typology, tropology, and allegory—​are effectively subsumed” (Constas 2018, 47). It is an anagogy, importantly, always pointing up toward Christ. The process of anagogical exegesis is inextricably an ascetic enterprise in Maximus. There is a deep-​seated sense in the Confessor’s work that the real meaning of Scripture—​as well as the meaning of the created world—​is concealed from us because of our slavery to passion and sin. As Constas eloquently expresses it, “the entry of the passions into human life precipitates a radical hermeneutical crisis, and as such is of fundamental importance for the interpretation of Scripture” (Constas 2018, 12). Scripture is there to encourage the shunning of these passions and the pursuit of virtue in the one Logos, but when mishandled by the slaves of pleasure, Scriptural exegesis becomes a liability (cf. 2 Peter 3:16). When, however, the text is approached with the ascetic mindset of a soul on fire with the love of God, he sees the text as living water nourishing the exegete with the Word himself. As he puts it: the divine word is like water, for just as water operates in different species of plants and vegetation and in different kinds of living things—​by which I mean in human beings who drink the Word Himself—​the Word is manifested in them through the virtues, in proportion to their level of knowledge and ascetic practice, like burgeoning fruit produced according to the quality of virtue and knowledge in each, so that the Word becomes known to others through other qualities and characteristics. For the divine word could never be circumscribed by a single individual interpretation, nor does it suffer confinement in a single meaning, on account of its natural infinity. (To Thalassius Intro.1.2.8)

Scripture’s “infinity” is not, as Constas points out, a means to ratify any kind of exegetical conclusion: “biblical interpretation unfolds within a framework of ethical, doctrinal, and ecclesial commitments, which are constraints on any potential infinity of interpretation” (Constas 2018, 39). It is an infinity encountered not by the conscious multiplication of interpretations of a given passage as such, but by communing with Scripture’s source, the infinite Logos, a communion that allows the living Scriptural text, the words of the Word, to be viewed ever afresh and anew, such that “even the world itself could not contain the books” of exegesis that could be written (cf. John 21:25).

270   Alexis Torrance

Light Yields to Light: Scripture, Learning, and Sanctification in Gregory Palamas When we turn to St Gregory Palamas (ca. 1296–​1357) we are dealing with someone who, like Maximus, largely inherits and sums up what has come before on the matter of approaching Scripture. We do not, then, need to rehearse the same points we have encountered already. However, with Palamas there are important accents worth considering, particularly in his interactions with Barlaam at the outset of the Hesychast Controversy. His most detailed examination of the nature and purpose of Scripture comes in his second triad In Defense of the Holy Hesychasts, in the first treatise dealing with the nature of knowledge, in particular salvific knowledge, and how it is not dependent on the knowledge gained through secular education. One of the accusations Palamas’s adversary Barlaam levels against the hesychasts is that they consider holy Scripture useless, chasing instead material visions of the divine essence through psychosomatic techniques (Triads 2.1.2). Palamas, of course, rejects this as outright calumny, and defends reverence for Scripture as a vehicle of salvific knowledge. Drawing on Paul and James, he sets up an opposition between the wisdom or knowledge of this world and the wisdom or knowledge of God: the former may sometimes be true, but it is not salvific, whereas the latter is both true and salvific. Scripture falls under the latter category for Palamas, and as such should not be analyzed and interpreted primarily through the means of the secular methods so cherished by Barlaam. Interestingly, however, he does not appear to preclude the use of the tools of scholarship to engage with the text, even if he is wary of setting much store by them. He writes: We also, transferring to the inquiry of what is necessary [for salvation] the modes of investigation espoused by the philosophy of profane learning, and making use of elements of that education for the elucidation of certain words [of Scripture], might easily stray from the right path. This can happen if we do not possess the only key to the sacred Scriptures, namely the grace of the Spirit, and are not led by the divinely-​inspired oracles themselves. At all events, it is clear from this how profane learning can be transformed and transposed to become something advantageous: for while the wisdom of the Spirit is in need of nothing, in that which is essentially good that which is not essentially good can be made good. (Triads 2.1.6)

Palamas is denouncing his opponent’s trust in the methods of scholarly enquiry, but in a rather subtle manner, such that these methods are not a priori excluded from the study of Scripture. It is a dangerous and tricky enterprise, but he does not consider it impossible to accomplish. The key to success, as he puts it, is to possess “the grace of the Spirit” and to place hermeneutical priority on the words of Scripture themselves, a way perhaps of expressing the principle of Scripture interpreting Scripture. Then, the Spirit can act in the interpreter to turn what is unstable and not of itself necessarily good, namely the methods of profane learning, to a good and profitable end. Palamas detects in Barlaam an unhealthy elevation of the methods and findings of secular studies such that Scripture can only give us “symbols” about the created order, whereas the sciences can raise us to the immaterial archetypes of beings. This presupposes, according to Palamas, that the knowledge of beings is somehow by itself a salvific and

Reading Scripture with the Church Fathers    271 necessary knowledge, which he denies. On this front, Scripture will always reign over such sciences: “there is something added to us from the divinely inspired Scriptures that is incomparably better than the knowledge of beings” (Triads 2.1.10). Natural philosophy and scientific enquiry “cannot of themselves introduce or lead us up to that which is better than knowledge,” whereas Scripture can (Triads 2.1.10). Palamas continues by confronting Barlaam’s allegation that the hesychasts discourage the reading of Scripture because of its potential to become a source of confusion. He reacts sharply: Among our hesychasts I know of none who, if they are literate, do not devote themselves to the Scriptures. If they are not literate, they are themselves like other living books, skillfully proclaiming the majority of the Scriptures by heart. (Triads 2.1.11)

He goes on to emphasize, with a gloss on Romans 2:13 commending “not the hearers but the doers of the law,” that Scripture needs to be approached not for knowledge, but for salvation. Specifically, he singles out the need for compunction in this process, citing an unidentified patristic text that runs, “a monk who reads for knowledge and not for compunction acquires conceit” (Triads 2.1.11). There was a deep-​seated understanding for Palamas, drawing on a long ascetic tradition, that for all its importance, Scripture and its exegesis could not become a stand-​in for the acquisition of divine grace in a human life. Even to read Scripture profitably was only a means to a greater end. In other words, there was more to Christian life than Scripture, a text which itself bears witness, and ultimately gives way to, something beyond itself, namely the living human encounter with God (see Torrance 2016, 2018). Palamas knew this was a delicate point to make, because it could easily be construed to imply that Scripture was considered dispensable for the hesychasts. But he nevertheless insists on upholding this point, using Scriptural exegesis to make it. Thus if the “law and the prophets” can be summarized as “doing unto others as you would have them do unto you” (Matthew 7:12), then for Palamas the one who keeps this commandment in a way contains all the Scriptures even if they have not all been read and memorized (Triads 2.1.43). Likewise, if the Lord commends the one who hears and does his word (cf. John 14:23) and comes to dwell in him, then such a person now possesses the Lord of all knowledge and all Scripture: He who possesses him within himself through the keeping of the divine commandments will no longer have need for the study of the Scriptures, but without study will know them all exactly, and will in fact become a sure teacher for those who are studying, just like John [the Baptist] and Anthony [the Great]. (Triads 2.1.43)

Notice that even while making his potentially controversial argument regarding the priority of sanctity over study, Palamas is couching it from beginning to end in Scriptural references. His aim is not to undermine Scripture, but to establish it as a witness to the sanctified life which itself does not depend on intellectual studies (even study of the text of Scripture), or literacy, for that matter. Scripture is irreducibly important for Palamas, but as a means to an end beyond its confines. The use of Scripture to argue for something higher than Scripture is found again in Palamas’s third treatise of the second triad In Defense of the Holy Hesychasts. It is in the midst of a discussion of the light of the Transfiguration as the uncreated light of divinity, the light of the age to come which can illumine the saints even now. Palamas insists that this

272   Alexis Torrance light is radically different from the light of knowledge obtained through “Greek learning.” Its significance is so great that it even surpasses the light of Scripture. Once again, he knows he is making a daring claim, but he bases it on 2 Peter 1:19: “we have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts.” The latter experience of the day dawning and the day star arising in our hearts is, quite simply for Palamas, the experience of the deifying light of Christ manifested at the Transfiguration (the context of the passage in 2 Peter already strongly suggests this). The fact that it is juxtaposed with the apparently dimmer light of “the word of prophecy” is not lost on Palamas: Do you see that this light newly shines in the hearts of the faithful and the perfect? Do you see how superior this light is to the light of knowledge? We are not even speaking about the light that comes from Greek learning, for that light is not even worthy of the name, being either all a lie or mingled with lies, and approaching darkness rather than light. No, not that light. The light of this contemplation differs so much even from the knowledge that comes from the divine Scriptures, that the latter light is compared to “a lamp shining in a dark place,” while the light of this mystical contemplation is compared to the day star shining in the day, which is the sun. (Triads 2.3.18)

In Palamas Scripture is a light of knowledge, incomparably higher than scientific knowledge (because of its salvific quality), but it is a light that in turn yields to a greater light. As in Maximus, the Bible contains the words of the Word. The goal of Scripture for both authors is not the assimilation of the words, but the indwelling of the Word in the human person, an indwelling accompanied by “unapproachable light” (cf. 1 Timothy 6:16). This structure does not, as we saw earlier, preclude the use of diverse and even “profane” methods when exploring Scripture, let alone the dedicated reading and memorization of the text. It only tries to put these in their proper place, where they can no longer threaten the faith and spiritual progress of the one who strives for union with Christ.

Conclusion: “They stripped me of my garments” Looking at the work of Origen (as he was mediated by the Cappadocian Fathers), St. Maximus the Confessor, and St. Gregory Palamas, we receive an impressive picture of what it might mean for Orthodox Christian exegetes to approach Scripture with the church fathers. An emphasis has been placed in this brief study not on individual interpretations of given biblical passages, important as these are, but on the broader doctrine of Scripture as such in these authors. The commonalities are striking but not altogether surprising, given the lines of influence. I have tried to mention in each case elements that are either seldom acknowledged (like the importance of the text’s historicity in Origen and Maximus) or little known (like Palamas’s nuanced view of the value of profane methods for Scriptural study). I would like to end, however, with a note of warning that I think would be shared by all three. If the Scriptural text is the garment of the Word, then the study of Scripture should never be separated from him. To separate Scripture from the Word is to strip once again the Word

Reading Scripture with the Church Fathers    273 of his garments.2 This is a deep-​seated scholarly temptation and, I would add, can occur for two main reasons. The first reason involves a misplaced trust in the overarching power and efficacy of the methods of biblical studies for the interpretation of the text. As Palamas so clearly saw, these kinds of methods form at best shifting sands, and thus can never be definitively relied upon as a basis for truly understanding the text. Such an approach to Scripture can easily result in a fixation on the garments themselves at the expense of the Body, forgetting that Scripture is first and foremost an ecclesial text. When this happens, Scripture is rid of the pure luster it properly possesses when it is draped over and clings to the light-​bearing Body of Christ. Worse, this fixation on the garments alone leads not only to the dulling of Scripture’s luminescence, but eventually to the dividing of those garments into innumerable patches of useless cloth. Even what is preserved whole is considered the result of a game of chance: “they parted my raiment among themselves, and for my vesture they cast lots” (Psalm 22:18 //​John 19:24). The second reason for stripping the Word of his garments is different but no less problematic. This is the temptation to overlook the basic and literal words of the biblical text, and though they are more durable than heaven and earth (cf. Matthew 24:35), to set them aside completely under the pretext of piously bypassing the question of historicity in favor of sanitizing allegories. Instead of fixating on the garments, the garments are completely ignored, tossed out, as if the providence of God had not really chosen these words, and the history they relate, as his own. The Word is not ashamed of these words and their history, and he commands his disciples likewise not to be ashamed of them (Mark 8:38 //​Luke 9:26). The historical and literal level of the text may not disclose the fullness of the text’s meaning, but it remains forever the gateway to that meaning, its anchor and frame. Reading Scripture with the church fathers is an exercise in reverence, to be sure: reverence for Christ above all. But it need not be an artless or unsophisticated reverence, even if a guileless faith in Scripture—​as Origen, Maximus, and Palamas would agree—​has much to commend it. The methods of biblical studies are understandably alarming to many Christian believers, but what is alarming is not so much the methods themselves as their claims to power and control over the text and its significance. When such claims are humbled “under the mighty hand of God” (1 Peter 5:6), they can take their legitimate place in the armory of the Orthodox Christian exegete. In the end, however, the Orthodox interpreter, no matter how sophisticated, always knows that the garment must yield to the Body, the light must yield to the Light, and the words must yield to the Word.

Select Bibliography Primary Sources Gregory Palamas, Défense des saints hésychastes [The Triads], 2 vols., ed. J. Meyendorff (Louvain: Université Catholique de Louvain, 1959). Maximos the Confessor, On Difficulties in Sacred Scripture: The Responses to Thalassios, trans. M. Constas (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2018). 2  “They stripped me of my garments” is the opening line of the Doxastikon of the Praises for the Matins of Holy Friday (cf. Matthew 27:28).

274   Alexis Torrance Maximos the Confessor, The Ambigua, 2 vols., ed. and trans. N. Constas (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 2014). Origen, The Philocalia, trans. G. Lewis (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1911). Origen, Contra Celsum, trans. H. Chadwick (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980). Origen, Homilies on Genesis and Exodus, trans. R. Heine (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1982).

Secondary Sources M. Baker and M. Mourachian (eds), What Is the Bible? The Patristic Doctrine of Scripture (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2016). P. Blowers, Exegesis and Spiritual Pedagogy in Maximus the Confessor: An Investigation of the Quaestiones ad Thalassium (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1991). M. Constas, “Introduction,” in Maximos, On Difficulties in Sacred Scripture (2018), 3–​60. M. Ford, The Soul’s Longing: An Orthodox Christian Perspective on Biblical Interpretation (Waymart, PA: St Tikhon’s Monastery Press, 2015). G. Florovsky, Bible, Church, Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox View (Belmont: Nordland, 1972). C. Kannengiesser, Handbook of Patristic Exegesis: The Bible in Ancient Christianity (Leiden: Brill, 2006). M. Legaspi, The Death of Scripture and the Rise of Biblical Studies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011). M. Legaspi, “Merely Academic: A Brief History of Modern Biblical Criticism,” in Baker and Mourachian (eds.), What Is the Bible? (2016), 181–​200. A. Torrance, “Barsanuphius, John, and Dorotheos on Scripture: Voices from the Desert in Sixth-​Century Gaza,” in Baker and Mourachian (eds.), What Is the Bible? (2016), 67–​82. A. Torrance, “Scaling the Text: The Ambiguity of the Book in John Climacus,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 111:3 (2018), 791–​804.

Chapter 17

Theol o gy, Ph i l o s oph y, and C onfessiona l i z at i on Eastern Orthodox Biblical Interpretation after the Fall of Constantinople up to the Late Seventeenth Century Athanasios Despotis Dedicated to the Great Church of God’s Wisdom, Hagia Sophia in Constantinople1

Introduction This chapter does not offer a general overview of the biblical exegesis in Eastern Orthodox regions after the fall of Constantinople. Still, it intends to add three perspectives to an already published overview of the Eastern Orthodox hermeneutics in the early modern era (Despotis 2016). Byzantine and early modern Eastern Orthodox biblical interpretations are often understood as paraphrases and repetitions of earlier patristic exegesis. They are characterized as “ecclesial exegesis” (Nikolakopoulos 2019, 146) and are considered in isolation from the developments in other contemporary traditions. This tendency results from a superficial survey of the relevant material. According to Krueger and Nelson (2016a), few scholars have explored and assessed Byzantine biblical interpretation after the patristic period, other than to dismiss it as compilation or derivative. Similarly, scholars often overlook the fact that though patristic and Byzantine exegetes sometimes condemn philosophy, they adopt and adapt strategies of contemporary philosophers in puzzling together the deeper meanings of the Scripture and heal the

1 This article was written in the Summer of 2020, a very sad coincidence, when the Turkish administration ordered the reclassification of Hagia Sophia as a mosque and the Imam used an Ottoman sword to reopen the worship (July 24, 2020).

276   Athanasios Despotis souls of their audience (Anagnostou-​Laoutides and Parry 2020). An additional reason for dismissing late Byzantine and early modern exegesis is the fact that scriptural exegesis of this era flourishes not in scholarly commentaries but mostly in lectionary sermons, catenae, poems, and icons (Magdalino and Nelson 2010b; Krueger and Nelson 2016b). Last but not least, a great number of manuscripts including scriptural interpretation of the early modern era remains unpublished.

From Late Byzantine to Early Modern Exegesis As it has been already shown (Magdalino and Nelson 2010a; Krueger and Nelson 2016b; Kolbaba 2012), the late Byzantine reception of the Scripture deserves more research. The study of its more essential aspects remains in infancy. For example, though Michael Psellos, a renowned late Byzantine philosopher and theologian, does not deliver an exegetical corpus, he draws on an impressive combination of ancient Greek philosophy and patristic reflections to interpret Christian traditions, beginning from Scripture, in his works. Thus he both delivers genuine readings of biblical traditions and continues a line of scriptural exegesis in his religious-​philosophical treatises that has its beginnings in Hellenistic Judaism (Ježek 2018). The Hellenistic Jewish philosophical explanation of the Bible had already been studied, adjusted, and transformed in the early patristic exegesis from Clement of Alexandria and Origen onward. Since then, the Bible remained at the core of theological reflection, ecclesial life, and lay spirituality in Eastern Christianity. In the late Byzantine empire, the Bible has been everywhere, in all aspects of life. Eastern-​Roman imperial ideology identified the entire empire with biblical symbols. Accordingly, the first conquest of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade (1204) has been interpreted as “the Babylonian exile” of its people and the second fall by Mehmet II as the fulfillment of the prophecies about the end of the world and the antichrist. Byzantines believed that they represented Orthodoxy, i.e., right faith, and Constantinople was the navel of the world (Magdalino and Nelson 2010a). Nevertheless, most of the Eastern Orthodox exegetes of the Scripture never ceased to have a relation to philosophy. This is evident both in the Byzantine and post-​Byzantine era. It is striking that scholars holding the titles “Grand Rhetor” (Μέγας Ρήτωρ) or “Great Interpreter of the Holy Scriptures” (Μέγας ἑρμηνευτὴς τῶν θείων γραφῶν) in the Patriarchal School after the fall of Constantinople were masters of philosophy with previous studies in European universities (Agiotis 2020, 151–​158). Thus Patriarch Ioasaph II claimed about John Zygomalas that “we engaged a master of philosophy like other teachers” (Steiris 2009). This philosopher and interpreter of the Scriptures Zygomalas played a crucial role in the formation of the official position of Eastern Orthodoxy about the biblical hermeneutics in the sixteenth century. Similarly, Eastern exegetes were active participants in the cultural discourses in early modern Europe. The differentiation between East and West in this era is not as absolute as many modern scholars believe. We detect not only polemic interactions but also a genuine exchange of ideas and scholarship between Eastern and Western Christianity (Searby

Theology, Philosophy, and Confessionalization    277 2018b) on all levels of theological reflection, from sophisticated theological texts to catechetical homilies in vernacular language (Koukoura 2011). It is remarkable that even Palamists like Gennadios Scholarios, the first Ecumenical Patriarch after the fall of Constantinople, have an impressive knowledge of Latin theology and translate Thomistic works. Though Eastern Orthodoxy experienced a decline after 1453, Scripture remained the foundation of Eastern Orthodox doctrine and ethics. Under the Ottoman swords, Orthodox theologians and priests had only a few opportunities for higher education (e.g., the Patriarchal Academy in Constantinople, or small schools on the islands of Chios and Crete). Still, biblical texts, e.g., readings in the lectionaries and the liturgical books or the Decalogue (Kalliakmanis 1988) played an enormous role in the formation of both the ecclesial and everyday life of Orthodox believers. Some Greek scholars could print biblical texts in the West (Cretan Georgios Alexandrou printed the Psalterion in Venice as early as in 1486) or study in the major educational centers of Europe (Oxford, Altdorf, and Venice) and especially in Padua. The University of Padua was the center of Aristotelian studies in the Renaissance and established the teaching of philosophy in Greek language in this era (Steiris 2009, 171). The international studies of Eastern Orthodox theologians had two immediate consequences: Some of them focused their exegesis quite forcibly against the teachings that they had experienced in the great educational centers of Catholicism and Protestantism, while others maintained contact with Catholic and Protestant groups from which they received funding in order to publicize their works. The college of St. Athanasius also cannot be ignored, because it was founded by the Roman Catholic Church to educate priests promoting Roman Catholicism in the Orthodox regions of the Ottoman empire. These tendencies brought about a polarization and a climate of polemic between East and West, and also among the Greeks, who often were caught up in heated arguments. This was a formative period, a time of confessionalization, i.e., development of denominational identities and territories in western Europe. In the East, while the central part of Orthodoxy remained under Turkish rule and needed the support of western states, the vast majority of patriarchates and the local churches tried to draw new boundaries between themselves, Roman Catholicism, and Protestantism. This is because Roman Catholicism intended to establish hegemony over Orthodox “schismatics” since the council of Florence (1431–​1449). However, this had proved difficult because eastern Orthodox theologians who had remained in the East after the fall of Constantinople were against the Florence union. At the same time, some Protestant theologians tried to establish their own profile in the eastern Churches and to work against the Roman Catholic initiatives (Karmires 1949, 100). In the following three sections, relevant texts reveal several aspects of competition and interaction between eastern and western traditions of this era.

Fifteenth Century: Between East and West, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam The first relevant reflections are delivered by a former master of philosophy and later Patriarch of Constantinople (1454–​1456; 1463–​1465), (Georgios) Gennadios II Scholarios.

278   Athanasios Despotis Though Gennadios Scholarios has been a renowned anti-​Latin theologian, he often draws on Thomistic works. His methodology reveals that he not only challenged but also learned a lot from the Latin West (Demetracopolous 2018). It is doubtful that Gennadios established the Patriarchal “Great School of the Nation” and appointed his pupil philosopher Matthew Kamariotes as the head of the school (Chatzimichael 2002). However, this tradition echoes the great interest of Scholarios for the education of the enslaved Orthodox faithful. The school reached its peak between the sixteenth and seventeenth century and played a crucial role in the philosophical and theological training of the eastern Orthodox scholars. A later principal of the school, Theophanes Eleavoulkos, who had studied the translations of the Thomistic works by Gennadios, introduced an Aristotelian trend in the syllabus of the Patriarchal school between 1545–​1548. The following principals at the patriarchal school continued this trend (Agiotis 2020, 152) that also characterizes western universities of this era (Padua). In his confession, that was intended to describe the Christian way of salvation to Mehmet II the Conqueror at the end of 1455 or the beginning of 1456, Scholarios delivers arguments for “the truth of our faith” (τὴν ἀλήθειαν τῆς πίστεως ἡμῶν). His insights reveal some essential principles of the eastern Orthodox biblical exegesis of his time. They are so formulated to be easily understood by a Muslim audience (Des Portes 2014). First, Gennadios stresses the continuity between the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament. He continues the “process of the Christianization” of the Hebrew Bible that began by its appropriation by the first communities of Christ believers (e.g., 1 Cor 10:11). In Gennadios’s view, Jewish prophets had prophesized the Christ event and the mission of the apostles that followed (Πρῶτον, ὅτι προεφήτευσαν οἱ προφῆται τῶν Ἰουδαίων, οὓς στέργομεν καὶ ἡμεῖς, τὸν Ἰησοῦν καὶ ὅσα ἐποίησαν οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ). Second, Gennadios believed in the divine inspiration of Scripture, and on behalf of this axiom he conducted a harmonizing and Canonical interpretation. According to the same author, all Scriptures “of our faith agree on all, for their authors had one master, i.e., God’s grace. Otherwise, they would contradict each other” (Αἱ γραφαὶ πᾶσαι τῆς πίστεως ἡμῶν συμφωνοῦσιν ἐν πᾶσι, διότι εἶχον οἱ γράψαντες αὐτὰς ἕνα διδάσκαλον, τὴν χάριν τοῦ Θεοῦ΄ ἄλλως γὰρ ἔμελλον ἔν τισι διαφωνεῖν.) If one considers the corpus of Gennadios’s works, one realizes that these principles played a crucial role in his exegetical, homiletical, and apologetic work. Gennadios was a prolific author. He wrote homilies on biblical narratives in which he interprets the biblical material by applying the aforementioned principles (Christological focus, harmonization, and canonical interpretation) and with the aim of spiritual counseling or conversion to Christian philosophy (κατὰ Χριστὸν φιλοσοφία Oratio 10,3). In his work Refutatio of Jewish errors on behalf of the Scripture, the Reality and the Christian Truth (Ἔλεγχος τῆς ἰουδαϊκῆς νῦν πλάνης ἔκ τε τῆς Γραφῆς καὶ τῶν πραγμάτων καὶ τῆς πρὸς τὴν χριστιανικὴν ἀλήθειαν παραθέσεως (titled Refutatio erroris Judaeorum on the TLG database), he envelopes his Christological understanding of the Hebrew Bible. Especially, Gennadios’s six treatises on difficult biblical passages that have been already published (Jugie, Petit, and Siderides 1930) are masterpieces of genuine exegesis. According to Jugie’s hypothesis, they were written after Gennadios’s second resignation from the patriarchate in Constantinople, during his retirement in the Monastery of John the Forerunner, on Mount Menoikion (Jugie 1930). It is striking that these treatises draw not only on an in-​depth analysis of the original text of the biblical text and its Byzantine exegesis but also on Latin theology, especially Augustine of Hippo and

Theology, Philosophy, and Confessionalization    279 Thomas Aquinas. Due to his acquaintance with scholastic exegesis, Gennadios develops a critical and systematic view that makes his interpretation in the six treatises on difficult biblical passages genuine.

Sixteenth Century: The Dialogue with the Reformation Exegetes The initiative of the classicist professor at the University of Tübingen Martin Crucius (1559–​ 1607) gave another critical impulse to eastern theologians and philosophers to reflect on biblical hermeneutics in an official text of the Orthodox Church in the sixteenth century. Crucius motivated the representatives of the Lutheran tradition in Tübingen to open a dialogue with eastern Orthodoxy that initially had a unitarian aim. The correspondence between the Tübingen professors and Patriarch Jeremias II began in 1573–​1574, when the German scholars sent him the Greek translation of the Augsburg Confession. However, this dialogue could not have been possible if Jeremiah were not an open-​minded person, intending to improve the education of the enslaved Greeks. Jeremiah II had been a pupil of the philosopher and “Great Exegete of the Holy Scriptures” John Zygomalas. He heard his philosophical lectures at the Patriarchal Academy in Constantinople.2 Around Jeremiah II, there also existed a circle of other scholars, who had a neo-​Aristotelian orientation and shared a passion for the Greek language and culture similar to that of Martin Crucius. His closest advisors and coauthors of his letters to Tübingen theologians were John Zygomalas and his son, Theodosios, as well as another philosopher, Leonardos Mindonios. The juxtaposition between the priority of the Scripture and the authority of the patristic ecclesial tradition was at the top of the Reformation agenda due to its anticatholic apologetics but also because typography had made early biblical interpretation more accessible in the West. Christian humanists and reformers devoted much energy to recovering and reading patristic exegesis (Chung-​Kim 2019, 688). Especially humanists believed that fathers are the best interpreters of the biblical tradition. Reformers, and particularly Luther, drew on the later writings of Augustine (his tracts during and after the Pelagian crisis) for their Pauline interpretation and their teachings on justification, human predestination, and divine grace. In contrast, Eastern philosophers and theologians continued the late Byzantine tradition of favoring Greek-​speaking fathers as exegetes and especially the Cappadocians and Chrysostom for their scriptural exegesis. The much-​debated question regarding the relationship between Scripture and ecclesial tradition in the western denominations of the sixteenth century was not a new issue for eastern theologians. For this question had already been answered by the Seventh

2  The most popular exegete of this era was Damascenos Stoudites (+​1574), a pupil of Theophanes Eleavoulkos, the philosopher who introduced Aristotelianism at the Patriarchal Academy in Constantinople. Damascenos’s work Thesaurus involved a. o. sermons on lectionary Gospel readings in vernacular language and proved his familiarity both with patristic exegesis and ancient philosophy. It has been translated in several Slavic languages. However, Damascenos did not contribute to the replies of Patriarch Jeremiah II to the reformers in Tübingen.

280   Athanasios Despotis Ecumenical Council and the supporters of the restoration of the ecclesial tradition and the veneration of the holy icons in the eighth century. It is not true that the eastern Church (Wendebourg 1986, 340) had not problematized this issue. Therefore, the Orthodox saw a kind of iconoclasm (Dmitriev 2007, 341) in sixteenth-​century Protestantism. The “triumph of Orthodoxy” in the Seventh Ecumenical Council was a victory for those who insisted that the written tradition of Scripture is not opposed to the oral tradition of the Church. In the “Synodicon of Orthodoxy,” both the continuity between the Old Testament and the Christian tradition as well as the restoration of the unity between the written Scriptural and oral ecclesial tradition that is transmitted by the church fathers are celebrated. The Synodicon was a liturgical text in active use and had evolved since the ninth century. Its evolution stopped with the fall of Constantinople, but it has been recited every year since as a sign of the unity of Orthodoxy (Auzépy 2002) and as praise of those who acknowledge and accept the prophetic visions in the manner that God gave them form and figured them and believe in what the choir of the prophets have seen and interpreted and support the written and oral tradition that extends from the apostles to the fathers (καὶ τὴν διὰ τῶν ἀποστόλων καὶ εἰς πατέρας διήκουσαν ἔγγραφόν τε καὶ ἄγραφον παράδοσιν κρατυνόντων).

Accordingly, Patriarch Jeremias II and his advisors at the beginning of their first response describe the church fathers as: divine interpreters of the inspired Scripture whom the Catholic Church of Christ receives by common opinion, for their words and miracles illuminate the whole world like another sun. For the Holy Spirit was breathing on them and was speaking through them. Their statements will remain unshaken forever because they are surely founded on the Word of the Lord. (Epistle, 1576; Karmires 1960, 444; translation Mastrantonis 1969, 55)

The reason for this focus on patristic exegesis is not that scholars in the East are not aware of the developments in the West, but rather their faith in the enlightenment of the Fathers by the Spirit of God and their need to remain in relationship to what gone before. For we may not rely upon own interpretation and understand and interpret any of the words of the inspired Scripture, except in accord with the theologians who have been approved by the holy synods [assembled] in the Holy Spirit. (Karmires 1960, 502; translation Mastrantonis 1969, 176)

In his second reply, Jeremiah II explicitly quotes canon 19 of the Quinisext Council (691–​692) that prohibits varying from the tradition of the fathers in the interpretation of the Scriptures (Karmires 1953, 435). By doing so, Patriarch Jeremiah II and his advisors were following Maximus the Confessor, John of Damascus, Gregory Palamas, Nicholas Kabasilas, and other late Byzantine interpreters (Cunningham 2016). The latter, however, did not assume that patristic interpretation could not rise to new challenges. Though surrounded by many Christian heretics, Jews, and also Muslims, late Byzantine theologians and philosophers could use earlier thought by recording differences of opinion (Lamb 2016) and employing theological language that arose after the era of the great patristic exegetes (Constas 2016, 159; Parry 1996). On behalf of this retrospective tendency, eastern Orthodox theologians also remained in continuity with long exegetical traditions rooted in Hellenistic Judaism.

Theology, Philosophy, and Confessionalization    281 This is the case, e.g., with the application of the divine essence/​energies distinction on the interpretation of the Scripture that played a crucial role in the late Byzantine exegesis (Constas 2016, 169) and also occurred in the Second Epistle of Jeremiah II (Karmires 1953, 437). This view does not stretch as far back as Origen, but has its beginnings in the Philonic philosophical interpretation of the Scripture (Pino 2017). Similarly, Jeremiah II’s argument in his third letter that human freedom of choice (αὐτεξούσιον) results from the creation of man according to the “image of God” and his potential to become assimilated to God (see text in Karmires 1953, 487) has Hellenistic-​Jewish origins. Jeremiah II’s reflections result from his study of earlier exegetes like Origen and the Cappadocians who had considered the Philonic biblical interpretation. Thus, the patristic exegesis that had been so important for the formation of the Orthodox identity in the sixteenth century also was of critical importance for the reconstruction of the religious-​philosophical beliefs lying behind the New Testament writings. Expectedly, Jeremiah II concludes his second reply by claiming that true philosophy is not against theology (τὴν ἀληθῆ φιλοσοφίαν οὐδόλως μάχεσθαι τῇ θεολογίᾳ). This assumption occurs in a context where 1 Col 2:8 is quoted: For Saint Paul says no one shall “take you captive through philosophy and empty deceit.” We learn from this holy word that true philosophy in no way challenges theology. For truth does not fight the truth. This is obvious from what follows: “and empty deceit.” (Karmires 1953, 443)

Given that the interpretation of the Scripture flourished not in scholarly commentaries but in other forms that were more accessible for Orthodox faithful in this dark era, it is striking that frescoes portraying ancient Greek philosophers become popular in Greek churches in the sixteenth century. Similar tendencies also occur in western Christendom at the end of the fifteenth and the beginning of the sixteenth century, e.g., the mosaics of the Siena Cathedral depicting Socrates, Crates on the mountain of Wisdom, the Sibyls, and Hermes Trismegistus, or the frescoes in the St. Walburgis church in Zutphen dating from 1500. Again these representations not only echo western humanism and the Renaissance but continue the long tradition of interaction between biblical tradition and ancient philosophy that finds its beginnings in Hellenistic Judaism (Dressen 2011).

Seventeenth Century: Censorship of the Bible in the East? As already mentioned, both Roman Catholics and Reformers worked to win converts from eastern Orthodoxy. The interest of Reformers in eastern Orthodoxy and the correspondence with Patriarch Jeremiah II evoked attempts of the Roman Curia to strengthen its influence in the Orthodox world (Dmitriev 2007, 323). Jesuit projects were quite successful in eastern Europe. The pressure of Rome was very noticeable even in Constantinople at the beginning of the seventeenth century. Under these circumstances, the Patriarch Cyril Loukaris (1572–​1638) tried to build a Protestant-​Orthodox front against the Roman Catholic Church. However, soon Loukaris became a prisoner of his allies (Kitromilides

282   Athanasios Despotis 2006, 197). In exchange for their support against Jesuits who tried to unseat Loukaris, Calvinist theologians pressured him to introduce Protestant theology in the eastern Church. Accordingly, Patriarch Cyril Loukaris secretly signed the Confessio Fidei Orthodoxae that was published anonymously in 1629 in Geneva. This text demonstrated his Calvinistic support for Protestant interpretations of Scripture (Rocchio 2015) and his attempt to incorporate it into the teachings of Orthodoxy (Cameron 2016a, 11). It primarily followed Calvin’s Institutio christianae religionis and secondarily the Confessio Gallicana and Confessio Belgica (Karmires 1953, 563). In ­chapter 3, Cyril claims: We believe the testimony of the Holy Scripture to be above the witness of the Church. This is because it is not the same thing to being taught by the Holy Spirit and by man; for man may through ignorance err, deceive and be deceived, but the word of God neither deceives nor is deceived, nor can err, and is infallible and has eternal authority. (adjusted transl. Maloney 1976, 131)

Furthermore, Loukaris added in an appendix to his confession questions and answers (catechetic style) regarding the reading of the Scripture and the biblical canon. Regarding the canon, Loukaris rejected the Old Testament books that occur only in the Septuagint and had been in use in the East for many centuries. He adopted the smaller list of the Synod of Laodicea in AD 360 (Old Testament including twenty-​two books, the Revelation is omitted from the New Testament; Pentiuc 2014, 119–​126). Cyril also promoted the idea that all baptized Christians must read and interpret the Scripture by themselves (without considering the patristic interpretation or teachers of the Church). This claim sounds the Reformation axiom sola scriptura and the plea for vernacular Bible reading by the laity. It also prepared for the translation of the Bible in modern Greek and challenged the contemporary Roman Catholic reticence against the private reading of the Scripture in the vernacular. In the view of the Latin authorities, the danger was that the Catholic faithful would accept the Reformation interpretations by reading the Bible in translations not approved by the Roman Curia. Therefore, the Catholic theologians in Leuven advised Emperor Charles in 1553 to issue a general edict prohibiting the reading of the Bible by uneducated people, while the Council of Trent decided that only the Bishop or the inquisitor could allow the reading of the Bible in vernacular translations (François 2015). Unsurprisingly, Loukaris and his Calvinist allies supported the first translation of the full New Testament text into modern Greek by Maximus from Gallipoli. This action, as well as his confession, had the objective of disseminating Protestant theology in Constantinople and throughout the East. It belonged to the strategy of the western missionaries that often included three goals (Khokhar 2015, 4): first of all, translating the New Testament into modern Greek; second, drawing up a confession that adapted Orthodox theology to western doctrines; and third, setting up schools for the oppressed Greeks. Accordingly, Cyril also tried to reform the Patriarchal Academy in Constantinople. He appointed his former colleague at the University of Padua, the philosopher Theophilos Korydaleus, as head of the Academy. Theophilos implemented the curriculum of his alma mater, the University of Padua, in Constantinople. His concept intended to isolate theology from philosophy in order to break with Latin scholasticism (Plested 2012, 151). “He tried to isolate the Bible from any philosophical framing that could occlude the direct and personal communication of the Word of God to the faithful” (Karalis 2007, 161).

Theology, Philosophy, and Confessionalization    283 Loukaris’s Calvinistic innovations could only provoke controversy that found its climax between the years 1629 and 1672, i.e., between the Loukarean and the Dosithean confessions. Patriarch Dositheos of Jerusalem (1641–​1707) used a synod in 1672 to issue a new confession, which very definitely turned against a Protestant understanding of the Bible. Dositheos of Jerusalem retained the orientation to the early Greek fathers in the interpretation of Scripture. Still, at the same time, he adopted the Roman Catholic reticence against the private reading of the Scripture. In the second decree of his ὁμολογία, which is structured according to the Loukarean confession, he challenges the primacy of the Scripture’s testimony against the ecclesial tradition: Wherefore, the witness also of the Catholic Church is, we believe, not of inferior authority to that of the Divine Scriptures. For one and the same Holy Spirit being the author of both, it is quite the same to be taught by the Scriptures and by the Catholic Church. Moreover, when any man speaketh from himself he is liable to err, and to deceive, and be deceived; but the Catholic Church, as never having spoken, or speaking from herself, but from the Spirit of God—​who being her teacher, she is ever unfailingly rich—​it is impossible for her to in any wise err, or to at all deceive, or be deceived; but like the Divine Scriptures, is infallible, and hath perpetual authority. (Karmires 1953, 747; translation: Leith 1963, 487)

Dositheos also expanded the biblical canon, and imitating the Council of Trent, he called the Septuagint additions canonical books (Pentiuc 2014, 128). He also responded to the Loukarean thesis regarding the private reading of the Scripture by claiming that Divine Scriptures: should not be read by all, but only by those who with fitting research have inquired into the deep things of the Spirit, and who know in what manner the Divine Scriptures ought to be searched, and taught, and in fine read. (Karmires 1953, 768; translation: Leith 1963, 506)

Recently, Belezos (2020, 68) has stressed that the Dosithean confession does not introduce a general prohibition of the private reading of the Scripture in the vernacular. Instead, Dositheos promotes three criteria for a properly Orthodox interpretation and transmission of the Bible: (1) the respect to the patristic interpretation, (2) the ecclesial experience, and (3) the illumination of the Spirit. Accordingly, the exclusive priority belongs neither to Scripture (sola scriptura) nor the ecclesial authorities (magisterium) but to the Holy Spirit that inspired the biblical authors and holds the Church together. Belezos’s claims demonstrate that Dositheos not only imitated Tridentine Catholicism but also tried to consider the traditional Byzantine theology (Russell 2013, 82). However, Loukaris also stressed the role of the Spirit. Therefore, the emphasis on the role of the Spirit in Dositheos’s strange position does not solve its problematic character. This prohibition can be explained only from the perspective of Dositheus’s passion for defending Orthodoxy. This passion led him to a decision with no parallel in the history of eastern Christianity (Georgi 1941, 56). Though the Dosithean confession in its early form embraced some Roman Catholic positions, Dositheos also developed and integrated into it anti-​Catholic apologetics in its later editions. He also set up a printing press in the Romanian town of Jassy, which published several Greek patristic works and disseminated them throughout all of the eastern Churches to prevent both Protestant and Latin theology from penetrating that region.

284   Athanasios Despotis

Conclusion After the fall of Constantinople, the representatives of the eastern Orthodox tradition struggled with several thorny matters. On the one hand, the occupation of Constantinople by Ottomans and the following captivity of the Church damaged the higher theological education in the East and, accordingly, the scholarly exegesis. Greek Orthodox patriarchates had to survive in a hostile environment. On the other hand, the efforts of Protestant and Roman Catholic missionaries to attract Orthodox converts evoked either anti-​Protestant or anti-​Catholic apologetics in the Orthodox “confessions” and decrees of this era. Confessions or homologiae are per se Western-​style doctrinal texts. Authors of eastern Orthodox confessions refer to earlier Byzantine decrees. Still, they adopt insights regarding the role of the Bible in the Church and its hermeneutics that are currently discussed in Europe. They also adapt Protestant or Roman Catholic ideas in new contexts so that eastern biblical hermeneutics keep following a different course than western exegesis. This is also true concerning philosophy. Orthodox traditions did not integrate a kind of philosophical speculation in their doctrines according to the scholastic paradigm. Yet, Orthodox scholars were fully aware of the new approaches, for most of them had studied in western universities. They used Aristotle, they conducted demonstrative argumentation, but they tried to combine it with Orthodox Byzantine theology “as practiced by the mystics” (Steiris 2009, 185). Orthodoxy defines itself in both contradistinction and alliance to the West (Butcher 2016, 345). Even Loukaris, who signed a Calvinist confession that recognized the Reformation principle of sola scriptura, never ceased to feel eastern Orthodox and to appreciate the patristic interpretation of Scripture. Though his innovations have been condemned by the Orthodox Church, his work displays a theological pluralism in the East that is often missed (Butcher 2016, 345). Eastern Orthodox theologians and exegetes developed their own theological identity in the age of confessionalization both by favoring the interpretation of the Greek fathers and interacting with the developments in the western tradition.

References Agiotis, Nikos. 2020. “Greek Renaissance Commentaries on the Organon: The Codex Wellcomensis MS.MSL.1.” In Exploring Greek Manuscripts in the Library at Wellcome Collection in London, edited by P. Bouras-​Vallianatos, 148–​179. New York: Routledge. Anagnostou-​Laoutides, Evangelia, and Ken Parry, eds. 2020. Eastern Christianity and Late Antique Philosophy. Texts and Studies in Eastern Christianity 18. Leiden, Boston: Brill. Auzépy, Marie-​France. 2002. “Synodikon of Orthodoxy.” In Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages, edited by Andre Vauchez et al., 1402. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Belezos, Konstantinos. 2020. Ιστορία των Νεοελληνικών μεταφράσεων της Καινής Διαθήκης: Η πρόταση του Καθηγητή Ιωάννη Ν. Καρμίρη: Έννοια. Butcher, Brian. 2016. “Orthodox Sacramental Theology: Sixteenth-​Nineteenth Centuries.” In The Oxford Handbook of Sacramental Theology, edited by Hans Boersma and Matthew Levering, 329–​347. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cameron, Euan. 2016a. “Introduction.” In Cameron 2016b, 1–​16.

Theology, Philosophy, and Confessionalization    285 Cameron, Euan, ed. 2016b. The New Cambridge History of the Bible: Volume 3: From 1450 to 1750. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chatzimichael, Dimitrios. K. 2002. “Ματθαῖος Καμαριώτης: Συμβολὴ στὴ μελέτη τοῦ Βίου, τοῦ ἔργου καὶ τῆς ἐποχῆς του.” PhD thesis, Αριστοτέλειο Πανεπιστήμιο Θεσσαλονίκης. Chung-​Kim, Esther. 2019. “Reception in the Renaissance and Reformation.” In The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Biblical Interpretation, edited by Paul Blowers and Peter Martens, 686–​703. New York: Oxford University Press. Constas, Maximos. 2016. “The Reception of Paul and of Pauline Theology in the Byzantine Period.” In Krueger and Nelson 2016b, 147–​176. Cunningham, Mary. 2016. “The Interpretation of the New Testament in Byzantine Preaching.” In Krueger and Nelson 2016b, 191–​203. Demetracopolous, John. 2018. “Scholarios’ on Almsgiving, or How to Convert a Scholastic “Quaestio” into a Sermon.” In Searby 2018a, 129–​177. Des Portes, Manon. 2014. “Le Bref exposé de la foi chrétienne du théologien Gennadios Scholarios. Présentation et traduction.” Réforme, Humanisme, Renaissance 78: 246–​258. Despotis, Athanasios. 2016. “Orthodox Biblical Exegesis in the Early Modern World (1450–​1750).” In Cameron 2016b, 518–​32. Dmitriev, Mikhail. 2007. “Western Christianity and Eastern Orthodoxy.” In The Cambridge History of Christianity. Volume 6: Reform and Expansion, 1500–​1660, edited by R. Po Chia Hsia, 321–​342. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dressen, Angela. 2011. “The Marble Philosophers and the Search for Pia Sapientia.” kunsttexte. de 2: 1–​9 (e-​journal: https://​edoc.hu-​ber​lin.de/​han​dle/​18452/​8287). François, Wim. 2015. “Τhe Catholic Church and the Vernacular Bible in the Low Countries: A Paradigm Shift in the 1550s?” In Discovering the Riches of the Word, edited by Sabrina Corbellini, Margriet Hoogvliet, and Bart Ramakers, 234–​281. Leiden: Brill. Georgi, Curt. 1941. Die Confessio Dosithei: Geschichte, Inhalt und Bedeutung. München: Ernst Reinhardt. Ježek, Václav. 2018. “Michael Psellos and Philo of Alexandria: The Immanence of God and Eclectic Philosophy as a Way of Life.” In Proceedings of the XXIII World Congress of Philosophy: Volume 6, Byzantine Philosophy, edited by Konstantinos Boudouris, 11–​15. Charlottesville, VA: Philosophy Documentation Center; Greek Philosophical Society. Jugie, Martin. 1930. “Georges Scholarios Questions scripturaires et théologiques.” Angelicum 7: 303–​313. Jugie, Martin, Louis Petit, and Xenophon Siderides. 1930. Oeuvres complètes de Georges (Gennadios) Scholarios: Vol. 3. Paris: Maison de la bonne presse. Kalliakmanis, Basileios. 1988. Η χρήση του Δεκαλόγου στην Τουρκοκρατία. Thessalonike: Pournaras. Karalis, Vrasidas. 2007. “Greek Christianity after 1453.” In The Blackwell Companion to Eastern Christianity, Vol. 2, edited by Ken Parry, 156–​185. Ames, IA: Blackwell Publishing. Karmires, Ioannis. 1949. “Ἡ Ὁμολογία τῆς Ὀρθοδόξου Πίστεως τοῦ Πατριάρχου Ἰεροσολύμων Δοσιθέου: B΄.” Θεολογία 20: 99–​119. Karmires, Ioannis. 1953. Δογματικὰ καὶ συμβολικὰ μνημεῖα τῆς Ὀρθοδόξου Καθολικῆς Ἐκκλησίας: Τόμος ΙΙ. Athens. Karmires, Ioannis. 1960. Δογματικὰ καὶ συμβολικὰ μνημεῖα τῆς Ὀρθοδόξου Καθολικῆς Ἐκκλησίας: Τόμος Ι. 2nd ed. Athens. Khokhar, Antony. 2015. “The Calvinist Patriarch Lucaris and His Bible Translations.” Scriptura 114: 1–​15.

286   Athanasios Despotis Kitromilides, Paschalis. 2006. “Orthodoxy and the West: Reformation to Enlightenment.” In The Cambridge History of Christianity. Volume 5: Eastern Christianity, edited by Michael Angold, 187–​208. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kolbaba, Tia. 2012. “Byzantine Orthodox Exegesis.” In New Cambridge History of the Bible: Volume 2: From 600 to 1450, edited by Richard Marsden and Ann Mater, 485–​504. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Koukoura, Dimitra. 2011. Το μήνυμα του Ευαγγελίου, μετάδοση και πρόσληψη. Thessalonike: Pournaras. Krueger, Derek, and Robert S. Nelson. 2016a. “New Testaments of Byzantium: Seen, Heard, Written, Excerpted, Interpreted.” In Krueger and Nelson 2016b, 1–​19. Krueger, Derek, and Robert S. Nelson, eds. 2016b. The New Testament in Byzantium. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection. Lamb, William. 2016. “Conservation and Conversation: New Testament Catenae in Byzantium.” In Krueger and Nelson 2016b, 277–​299. Leith, John. 1963. Creeds of the Churches: A Reader in Christian Doctrine from the Bible to the Present. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books. Magdalino, Paul, and Robert S. Nelson. 2010a. “Introduction.” In Magdalino and Nelson, 2010b, 1–​38. Magdalino, Paul, and Robert S. Nelson, eds. 2010b. The Old Testament in Byzantium. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection. Maloney, George A. 1976. A History of Orthodox Theology since 1453. Belmont, MA: Nordland. Mastrantonis, George. 1969. “The Correspondence of the Tübingen Theologians and Jeremiah II on the Augsburg Confession and Translation of the First Answer of the Ecumenical Patriarch Jeremiah II to the Lutheran Theologians of Tübingen in 1576.” Master of Sacred Theology Thesis, Concordia Seminary. Nikolakopoulos, Konstantin. 2019. “Freiheit der Exegese? Die Bibel in den orthodox-​ reformatorischen Gesprächen ‘Tübingen I’ und in der modernen Schriftauslegung.” In Ostkirchen und Reformation 2017: Begegnungen und Tagungen im Jubiläumsjahr: Band 2: Freiheit aus orthodoxer und evangelischer Sicht, edited by Martin Illert and Irena Z. Pavlović, 141–​153. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt. Parry, Kenneth. 1996. Depicting the Word: Byzantine Iconophile Thought of the Eighth and Ninth Centuries. The Medieval Mediterranean 12. Leiden: Brill. Pentiuc, Eugen. 2014. The Old Testament in Eastern Orthodox Tradition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pino, Tikhon Alexander. 2017. “An Essence–​Energy Distinction in Philo as the Basis for the Language of Deification.” Journal of Theological Studies 68: 551–​571. Plested, Marcus. 2012. Orthodox Readings of Aquinas. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rocchio, Cristiano. 2015. “Le strutture del credibile. Elementi topici nelle Confessioni di Fede in particolare in quella di Cirillo Loukaris.” In Trame controluce: Il patriarca protestante Cirillo Loukaris, edited by Viviana Nosilia and Marco Prandoni, 135–​149. Studi e saggi 136. Firenze: Firenze University Press. Russell, Norman. 2013. “From the “Shield of Orthodoxy” to the “Tome of Joy”: The Anti-​ Western Stance of Dositheos II of Jerusalem (1641–​1707).” In Orthodox Constructions 82. of the West, edited by George E. Demacopoulos and Aristotle Papanikolaou, 71–​ New York: Fordham University Press. Searby, Denis, ed. 2018a. Never the Twain Shall Meet? Byzantinisches Archiv–​Series Philosophica 2. Berlin: de Gruyter.

Theology, Philosophy, and Confessionalization    287 Searby, Denis M. 2018b. “Foreword.” In Searby 2018a, 1–​8. Steiris, Georgios. 2009. “ ‘We Engaged a Master of Philosophy Like Other Teachers’: John and Theodosius Zygomalas and Some Philosophical Discussions in the Second Half of the 16th Century.” In Ἰωάννης Καὶ Θεοδόσιος Ζυγομαλάς, edited by S. Perentidis and Georgios Steiris, 167–​185. Athens: Daidalos. Wendebourg, Dorothea. 1986. Reformation und Orthodoxie: Der ökumenische Briefwechsel zwischen der Leitung der Württembergischen Kirche und Patriarch Jeremias II. von Konstantinopel in den Jahren 1573–​1581. Forschungen zur Kirchen-​und Dogmengeschichte 37. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Chapter 18

T he New Testa me nt i n t he Orthod ox C hu rc h Liturgical and Pedagogical Aspects

Konstantin Nikolakopoulos Introduction We are all aware of the importance and the extraordinary significance of the Holy Scripture and especially of the New Testament for Christendom.1 Consequentially, the interpretation of scripture within the entire Christian church was vital, because, among other things, the endeavor of understanding the New Testament has been a serious concern for the Old Church since the earliest days of Christianity.2 Christians perceive the Bible as the foundation of their faith. Naturally, it is regarded, as has been noted, by some western Christians to be the exclusive source of Christendom, yet by us Orthodox it is perceived as one of the most important sources. By and large, this special second part of the Bible, namely the New Testament, assumes a prominent role within the eastern and western church as regards the process of faith, which has evolved through time. It constitutes the origin and guideline for the individual believer, the proclamation of the faith by the church, as well as the “struggle” of theology. Within the (polymorphous) writings of the New Testament, God reveals himself in the word that has been written down by Man. Within the written texts the Divine meets the Human. Having originated under the conditions of time and space, the New Testament requires continuous exegesis in light of the changing understanding of world and man, so that it can reach each consecutive generation und perpetually correspond to the modern world. Without a doubt, the entire Scripture and particularly the New Testament possesses, throughout the centuries and in any place, a diachronic worth and a permanent prominence;

1 

I am very grateful to Mr. Tristan Martin Fincken and Ms. Efrosyne Kataropoulou for their support with the linguistic processing and the suggestions for correcting my contribution in English. 2  Regarding this central topic, note the enlightening work of S. Agouridis, Ἑρμηνευτική τῶν ἱερῶν κειμένων (Athens: Artos Zois, 2000).

The New Testament in the Orthodox Church    289 this of course applies to both the clergy and to the faithful. We should however, in this context, keep a clear distinction in mind, which in the Orthodox Tradition relates to the role allocation of the official church and the plain faithful. Not any faithful randomly, but only the church, which is led by the Holy Spirit, has the full authority to interpret the revealed divine truth und to make it subservient to the salvation of the faithful. “Extra Ecclesiam nulla veritas,” is an ecclesiological principle. Salvation and its subservient truth are essential attributes of the Church of Christ, which in accordance with the New Testament is called “Θεοῦ οἰκοδομή” and “γεώργιον” (=​“God’s husbandry and God’s building,” 1 Cor 3:9), “κατοικητήριον Θεοῦ” (=​“habitation of God,” Eph 2:22), “οἶκος Θεοῦ, στῦλος καὶ ἑδραίωμα τῆς ἀληθείας” (=​“house of God, pillar and ground of the truth,” 1 Tim 3:15). This means that on the one hand the church, as the guarantor of truth, is responsible for the exegesis of the Holy Scripture. Naturally, on the other hand, a good knowledge of the New Testament, which can only be obtained through enlightened exegesis, is a major concern for all conscientious Christians. In other words: In this case, the study of the Scripture is up to each individual member of the Church. I highlight the importance of study in the first part of this chapter, and in the second part I examine the functionality of the Orthodox exegesis of the New Testament, then discussing its importance according to its liturgical aspects in the third part. In the concluding fourth part of this chapter I present a short outline of some selected pedagogic characteristics of the New Testament writings.

The Study of the New Testament from an Eastern-​E cclesiastical Perspective The holy writings of the New Testament possess an invaluable importance for all faithful, in part because it was developed neither independent from nor outside of, but within and in lively connection with the ecclesial life and the ecclesial tradition. We Orthodox should stress with all clarity: The church did not originate from the New Testament Bible, but the biblical writings have descended from ecclesial life. According to the orthodox understanding, the church is the spiritual fold, from which all development of Christian life, including the holy writings of the New Testament, originated. The New Testament scholar Petros Vassiliadis from Thessaloniki put it like this: “it is generally acknowledged that the proper place of the Bible is the Church, for it existed long before the formation of Scripture.”3 According to the decrees of the Seventh Ecumenical Council (787), the study and knowledge of the Scripture is essentially a duty for all Christians. The second canon of the same Council (Nicaenum II),4 however, gives practical advice and highlights the following differences: Detailed research and exegesis of the New Testament writings are primarily the particular duties of the clergy (and especially of the episcopacy); in other words: The 3 

Petros Vassiliadis, “Scriptural Authority in Early Christian Hermeneutics,” in Μνήμη, Festschrift for I. E. Anastasiou (Thessalonica, 1982), 106. 4  G. A. Ralles and M. Potles, Σύνταγμα τῶν θείων καί ἱερῶν κανόνων (Athens: Oikos Regopoulos, 2002), 560–​561.

290   Konstantin Nikolakopoulos ecclesial hierarchy has the institutional stewardship over the mandatory exegesis, which is to be spread at all times among God’s people for their spiritual gain, the consolidation of their faith, and eventually their salvation. Regarding the engagement of the pious folks with the Holy Scripture and especially with the New Testament, because of its importance, an example of the whole ancient Christian literature, albeit a significant single one, is to be presented. John Chrysostom († 407), one of the most important theologians, preachers, exegetes, and shepherds of the ancient undivided church, positions himself clearly and distinctively. This church father developed his homiletic and kerygmatic gifts to such a degree, that he proved himself to be a “golden speaker” (Χρυσοῤῥρήμων) with a “golden mouth” (Χρυσολόγος),5 and thus has been bequeathed the exclusive title “golden mouth” since the sixth century.6 John used his kerygmatic debate about the holy writings of the New Testament, in order to reach his main goals, namely the spiritual edification of the faithful in order to redeem the human soul7 and the glorification of God. To that end, he modeled his exegetic homilies after the practical execution of Christian lives. Indeed, this formed his spiritual longing, which contributed to him proving himself to be a honeysweet preacher as well as a supreme shepherd of the Church of Christ. He himself was never tired of highlighting the inventive worth of kerygma and the joy and the spiritual as well as psychic peace, which he received though his beloved activity. Once, when he wanted to comfort his nervous flock after an earthquake, he started his speech with the following words: “But the proclamation of the word turned my sickness into healthiness [ . . . ] Thus, in spite of my sickness, did I not bind my tongue with silence, nor did you keep away from listening despite being tired. As soon as I open my mouth, all sorrow is gone. As soon as I start with study, all fatigue has left [ . . . ] Same as you hunger to listen to me, so do I hunger to preach.”8 The vital role the sermon played in his life, is emphasized quite clearly. As a tireless shepherd with a gigantic life’s work, Chrysostom, with utmost explicitness, links the spiritual and psychic needs of his faithful to the personal study of the New Testament. Without a doubt, he himself is the first to be a role-​model, since all his homilies are always inspired by biblical writing, which percolates within them. In this respect, it should be mentioned that John Chrysostom, in all his conserved works, uses ca. 18,000 direct quotations, of which ca. 11,000 originate in the New Testament.9 During his preaching and teaching activity, he not only used the New Testament but also turned

5 Ἀποστολική Διακονία τῆς Ἐκκλησίας τῆς Ἑλλάδος (ed.), Μηναῖον τοῦ Νοεμβρίου (Athens: Apostoliki Diakonia, 1993), 223. 6  B. Altaner and A. Stuiber, Patrologie: Leben, Schriften und Lehre der Kirchenväter (Freiburg: Herder, 1993), 322. 7  He often underlines the incalculable worth of the human soul, which, as he stated, is supposed to be even more precious than the whole world. John Chrysostom, I. Epistolam ad Corinthios, Hom. 3: PG 61,29: “Οὐκ ἔστι ψυχῆς οὐδὲν ἀντάξιον, οὐδὲ ὁ κόσμος ἅπας.” 8  John Chrysostomos, Hom. Post terrae motum: PG 50,713f.: “ἀλλ’ ἡ τοῦ λόγου διδασκαλία καὶ τὴν ἀῤῥωστίαν τὴν ἡμετέραν εἰς ὑγείαν μετέβαλε [ . . . ] Διὰ δὴ τοῦτο οὔτε αὐτὸς ἀῤῥωστῶν τῆ σιωπῆ τὴν γλῶτταν κατέδησα, οὔτε ὑμεῖς κεκοπωμένοι τῆς ἀκροάσεως ἀπέστητε· ἀλλ’ ὁμοῦ τε ὁ λόγος ἐφάνη, καὶ ὁ πόνος ἀνεχώρησεν, ὁμοῦ τε ἡ διδασκαλία ἐφάνη, καὶ ὁ κόπος ἐδραπέτευσεν [ . . . ] Ὥσπερ γὰρ ὑμῖν λιμὸς τὸ μὴ ἀκούειν, οὕτω καὶ ἐμοὶ λιμὸς τὸ μὴ λέγειν.” See also Karl Suso Frank, Lehrbuch der Geschichte der Alten Kirche (Paderborn: Ferdinand Schoeningh, 1997), 413. 9  See, in this regard, Fontes Christiani, Johannes Chrysostomus, Taufkatechesen I, 21.

The New Testament in the Orthodox Church    291 it into the beginning, middle, and end of his speeches. It would be no exaggeration to call his entire life a continuous communion with the inexhaustible wealth of the holy writings.10 Very often and in different ways he encourages his faithful to study privately by stressing the gained use: “Overall, what the material nourishment is for the maintenance of our strength, so is the reading of the Holy Scripture for the soul. It is spiritual food und strengthens one’s thoughts. It makes the soul stronger, more steadfast and fills it with philosophical wisdom.”11 One of his biggest worries was to draw closer to the deeper-​lying biblical word itself and then to bring it closer to the faithful. He turns to his listeners in one of his homilies with the following words: “This is what our entire vigilance and our entire diligence targets, that you all together may stand complete and accomplished, and that you may not miss anything, that is written in the holy writings.”12 This great church father, however, was aware that most Christians of his time had problems understanding the biblical words, either because they did not have the required historical-​philosophical fundamentals or because they lacked the more or less appropriate requirements for such an undertaking.

The Exegesis of the Inspired New Testament Inextricably linked to the aforementioned points is another major thematic unit of the fundamental exegesis of the Holy Scripture and the New Testament in particular, for which the official church bears full responsibility. In the context of the Orthodox exegesis, the church is also the frame or ground, in which the exegesis of God’s word is to take place. A well-​ known phrase of Orthodox theology is, “The exegesis as an attempt to delve deeper into the depths of the meaning of the text, in order to grasp it more completely, is a role, a service and a gift of the church.”13 “The church alone is, by power of the intrinsic Holy Spirit, not only the infallible Steward, but the authentic teacher, judge and arbiter of the divine revelation contained within both

10 

See also K. Belezos, Χρυσόστομος καί Ἀπόστολος Παῦλος. Ἡ χρονολογική ταξινόμηση τῶν παύλειων ἐπιστολῶν, 2nd ed. (Athens: Psychogios, 2005), 21 ff.: “Κάθε φορά πού ὁ ἴδιος δίδασκε, δέν κατέφευγε ἁπλῶς σ’ αὐτό, ἀλλ’ ἐκκινοῦσε καί κυριολεκτικά ἐπληροῦτο ἀπό αὐτό [ . . . ] Δέν ἀποτελεῖ, τέλος, ὑπερβολή νά λεχθεῖ ὅτι ὁλόκληρη ἡ ζωή του ὑπῆρξε συνεχής ἀναστροφή μέ τόν ἀνεξάντλητο πλοῦτο τῆς Γραφῆς καί θεοκίνητη ἐνασχόληση μαζί της.” See, in this regard, the interesting remarks of S. Sakkos, “Ὁ ἱερός Χρυσόστομος ὡς ἑρμηνευτής,” in Πρακτικά ΙΣΤ΄ Θεολογικοῦ Συνεδρίου (Thessaloniki, 1996), 271. 11  John Chrysostom, In Genesim, Homiliae 29: PG 53,262. see also: Prinz Max and Herzog zu Sachsen (eds.), Des hl. Johannes Chrysostomus Homilien über die Genesis oder das erste Buch Mosis, Band 1 (Paderborn: Ferdinand Schoeningh, 1913), 407. Additionally, see in this regard the words of John Chrysostom: “I cannot let a single day pass, without feeding you from the treasures of the Holy Scripture” (In Genesim, Homiliae 28,1: PG 53,252). 12  John Chrysostom, In Genesim, Homiliae 28: PG 53,252. See also: Max and Sachsen, Des hl. Johannes Chrysostomus Homilien, 389. 13 Georgios Galitis, “Historisch-​ kritische Bibelwissenschaft und orthodoxe Theologie,” Études théologiques de Chambésy 4 (1984), 114–​115.

292   Konstantin Nikolakopoulos tradition as well as the canon of the New Testament,” as is characteristically stated by Evangelos Antoniadis, the Athenian New Testament scholar of the 1930s.14 The Thessalonikian emeritus New Testament scholar John Karavidopoulos begins his essay titled “The Exegesis of the New Testament in the Orthodox Church,” with the following words: An important part of the New Testament, the Gospel, which constitutes its heart, is retained on the altar table of every church. From this table the celebrant receives the text, which, in its liturgical usage, as a whole book is called “Holy Gospel,” in order to read it to the convention of the faithful, and then return it after the reading. This shows the special status, that the word of God has in the Orthodox Church, as well as the close relationship between Holy Scripture and the Church. Not only does the church safeguard the Holy Scripture and read it to the faithful, but it also interprets it responsibly throughout the centuries.15

This beautiful image precisely showcases the importance and position of the New Testament within the Orthodox Tradition. In modern times, however, we should also acknowledge the evaluation of the Bible differing from Orthodoxy. Naturally, the New Testament, in which the truth of the revelation was written down, takes on an important and indispensable role in all Christian churches. However, there is no uniform exegesis in the entirety of Christendom. The different hermeneutical methods that are used within Christian biblical sciences, sometimes lead to more confusion than mutual understanding, something that impedes and burdens the ecumenical reconciliation of the Cristian world. In the first Christian centuries, especially among the church fathers, the allegorical or typological as well as the philological-​historical exegesis of the Holy Scripture was prevalent.16 At the beginning of the modern times—​especially during the Reformation—​interest in the sense of the words as well as the original text was created. Since the Enlightenment, with the development of the modern historical self-​consciousness, the historical-​critical method evolved over the course of the twentieth century, which now tries to undertake the necessary steps, to unlock the biblical writing in conjunction with the history of their inception and tradition. This is by no means absurd, but instead rather appropriate, because of occasional encounters of the different Christian faiths, be it on an administrative, liturgical, or academic level, to remember the official schism of the eastern and the western Church since 1054. Indeed, ever since the schism, which the ecumenical movement of the last decades has mended toward a trusting convergence, our churches have walked their own path. This divergence still strongly shapes all facets of church life and theological science to this day, including biblical theology.

14 

E. Antoniadis, “Die orthodoxen hermeneutischen Grundprinzipien und Methoden der Auslegung des Neuen Testaments und ihre theologischen Voraussetzungen,” in Procés-​Verbaux du premier Congrès de Théologie Orthodoxe (Athens, 1939), 149. 15 John Karavidopoulos, “Η ερμηνεία της Κ. Διαθήκης στην Ορθόδοξη Εκκλησία,” in: J. Karavidopoulos, Βιβλικές μελέτες, vol. 2 (Thessaloniki: Pournaras, 2000), 11. 16  See more in K. Nikolakopoulos, Die “unbekannten” Hymnen des Neuen Testaments: Die orthodoxe Hermeneutik und die historisch-​kritische Methode (Aachen: Shaker Verlag, 2000), 19–​23.

The New Testament in the Orthodox Church    293 Thus, in the realm of the exegesis of the New Testament, two differing scientific approaches developed, as mentioned earlier. In the western church, a strong historical approach with a suitable exegetical tool, the historical-​critical approach, has prevailed.17 In the East, on the other hand, the acts of God have been given a broader position in history, as the traditional patristic hermeneutic of Orthodoxy does not like to see the mystery and the rational exploration divided. The perspective of uninterrupted Orthodox Tradition regarding the meaning, worth, and exegesis of the New Testament can be effectively illustrated through the church fathers. The orthodox engagement with the spirit-​inspired writings obtains its traditional character through the lived tradition, as transmission of ecclesial life in close combination with the holy writings, which are viewed as essential hermeneutic factors. It is at this point that one must point out the very important role of the church fathers, “who are viewed as living witnesses of apostolic tradition.”18 The church fathers have “never thought, that their writings could replace the gospel and the letters of the New Testament! To them the scripture was always a criterion for their views, but also an unplundered treasure trove for inspiration and spiritual life,”19 as the Greek New Testament scholar Savvas Agourides stressed so clearly. While dealing with the holy writings, the church fathers, as exegetes of the Scripture, additionally strove not to lose sight of the promotion of the true and undiluted faith of the church. Based on the fact that the New Testament does not stand above the Church, but rather “is the authentic expression of faith and life within the church, which is organically connected to the faith and life of the whole church throughout the centuries,”20 the patristic works have proven to be the living connection between scripture and tradition and a bearer of the Christian faith and life.21 The reception of patristic exegesis is still observed respectfully by orthodox hermeneutics today. However, one should not think of this as a form of duplicate or dry imitative repetition of the writings of the church fathers. This is not about accordance of today’s theologians with the sentiments of a church father in grammatical or historical debates with the biblical text. Rather it is the accordance of the transcribed faith with the patristic writings. Georgios Galitis puts it like this: “These texts shall not be viewed as a fence by exegesis, also not as obligatory guidelines, but rather as a touchstone, so that we may realize, if and how they are situated within the spirit of the Church.”22

17  A critical summary of the western biblical research is provided by John Karavidopoulos in “Ἡ ἐπιστημονική ἔρευνα τῆς Κ. Διαθήκης ἐν τῷ Προτεσταντισμῷ καί τῷ Ρωμαιοκαθολικισμῷ κατά τήν τελευταίαν πεντηκονταετίαν,” Epistimoniki Epetiris Theologikis Scholis Athenon 11 (1966), 475–​500. 18  E. Antoniadis, “Die orthodoxen hermeneutischen Grundprinzipien und Methoden der Auslegung des Neuen Testaments und ihre theologischen Voraussetzungen,” in Procès-​Verbaux du premier Congrès de Theólogie Orthodoxe (Athens, 1939), 171. 19  S. Agourides, Ἑρμηvευτική τῶv ἱερῶv κειμέvωv (Athens: Artos Zois, 2000), 69. 20 Ibid. 21 On the consistent theme and the meaning of the Christian faith, see also K. Backhaus and F. G. Untergaßmair (eds.), “Schrift und Tradition”: Festschrift for Josef Ernst for the 70th birthday (Paderborn: Ferdinand Schoeningh, 1996). 22  G. Galitis, “Historisch-​kritische Bibelwissenschaft und orthodoxe Theologie,” Études theólogiques de Chambésy 4 (1984), 116.

294   Konstantin Nikolakopoulos For the church fathers and the orthodox hermeneutics in general, the Holy Scripture is not a philological book that primarily transmits historical information to us. The Holy Scripture is a collection of religious writings, that give testimony about the faithful early-​Christian parish. Especially the New Testament forms the written message of Christendom, the kerygma of Christian faith. It is the word of God, which intends to redeem humanity. Thus, the church fathers pursued not only a “word-​for-​word”-​interpretation, but also an allegoric-​typological or anagogical interpretation. The biblical writings are historical products (western focus), but they also express the mystery of the divine truth (eastern focus). These writings are subject to the principles of historiography, yet they have not been written to describe the historical realities of a certain time, but rather strive to give this reality another, deeper meaning. The familiarity with this deeper, soteriological meaning of the biblical writings could be achieved by all Christians throughout time without the complete evaluation of their historical dependencies. For Orthodox theology, therefore, the eucharistic communion functions as a guarantee for the living continuation of the past.

Liturgical and Hymnological Aspects of the New Testament Without a doubt, the New Testament does not constitute a purely liturgical-​hymnological book in all Christian churches. It has never been viewed as such in the entirety of ecclesial history. Its historical, didactical, and at the same time prophetic character does not leave room for any such speculations. The narrative (historical) and educational (moral-​like) guidelines of the New Testament books obviously leave the impression that they are writings with only a historical-​narrative and apologetic-​faith-​like character.23 Nevertheless, the New Testament—​and consequentially the entire Bible—​is linked to the liturgical life of the church via a special, outstanding link: This refers to its usage in the context of the liturgical practice of the parish, which has been recorded as irreplaceable throughout the Christian centuries, while it needs to be highlighted, that the structure of all divine services of the Orthodox Church is heavily molded after the Bible or rather the New Testament.24 Considering the fact that all liturgical writings are infused with biblical language and biblical spirit, it can be stated, without a doubt,

23  In this context of generic classification of the New Testament, refer to the following publication: D. Dormeyer, Erträge der Forschung, Bd. 263 (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1989). Although the study limits itself to the genre “Gospel”—​one of the most important parts (together with the parenetic-​didactical Epistles however) of the New Testament—​the entire history of and all attempts at generic naming are clearly presented. 24  Compare D. I. Konstantelos, “The Holy Scriptures in Greek Orthodox Worship,” GOTR 12.1 (1966), 7f.: “The starting point in every service is a phrase from the Holy Scriptures and almost every liturgy, sacrament, and service includes readings from the Bible. Indeed, the Greek Orthodox Church is very much a Scriptural Church. She is the biblical Church par excellence. It is not only that her faith is derived from the Holy Scriptures, but her very life is deeply imbued with ideas and teachings of the Bible.”

The New Testament in the Orthodox Church    295 that the Orthodox Church distinguishes itself as the biblical church25 or the church of the Scripture. Independent of how often the New Testament is quoted within the orthodox liturgical congregation or appears indirectly through hints within the textual background, it is undoubtedly to be counted among the fundamental parts of orthodox faith and life. The New Testament is interpreted within the ecclesial body26 and is liturgically enlisted because of this old church, patristic spirit of tradition. One of the best and most reliable ways to approach the New Testament and its message is, according to orthodox opinion, to “meet” it within the liturgical practice. This would be the “main street,” which the liturgical position of the New Testament in the center of the communion and parish obviously hints at and prefers. It is however also possible to approach the liturgical spirit of the New Testament from a different angle, effectively a “back road.” This spirit can be found materializing in the byzantine Orthodox hymnography over the course of the Christian centuries. Its dominant presence in the still-​relevant divine service writings of Orthodoxy surely gives testimony to its outstanding hymnological worth. And this can, in effect, contribute to both the understanding of its central liturgical meaning and the better communication of its theological-​ soteriological role within the church.27 It needs to be mentioned here that another aspect of the topic “New Testament and hymnology” would be of relevance. This is the contribution of the writings of the New Testament as historical sources for the early Christian liturgical facts. Naturally, “a closer examination of the New Testament writings can . . . shed more light . . . on the liturgical life of the early Christians in this time”;28 such an undertaking could also overlap with the object of research of the history of the Christian liturgy.

25 T.

Ware, The Orthodox Church (New York: Penguin Books, 1983), 207: “The Christian Church is a Scriptural Church”; “Orthodoxy regards the Bible as a verbal icon of Christ” (210). Compare also the interesting statistic: “it has been calculated that the Liturgy contains 98 quotations from the Old Testament and 114 from the New” (210). See also P. Evdokimov, Ἡ Ὀρθoδoξία, translated from French by A. Mourtzopoulos (Thessaloniki, 1972), 324, footnote 96. In addition, see J. S. Custer, “An Ironic Scriptural Wordplay in Byzantine Hymnography,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 37 (1993), 97: “The Hymnography . . . is a poetic fabric woven largely from Scriptural quotations and allusions.” 26  Compare V. Kesich, “The Orthodox Church and Biblical Interpretation,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 37 (1993), 349: “the Orthodox interpreter is free in his research, but free within the perspective of the Church’s living tradition. Scripture is not a field by itself; its meaning is revealed within the life of the Church.” See also the remarks of P. N. Simotas, “Τὸ πρόβλημα τῆς ἑνότητoς βιβλικῆς καὶ δoγματικῆς θεoλoγίας ἐξ ἐπόψεως ὀρθoδόξoυ,” Θεoλoγία 65 (1994), 246: “Ἡ ὀρθόδoξoς δὲ ἔρευνα καὶ εἰς τὸν τoμέα τῆς βιβλικῆς θεoλoγίας λαμβάνει ὑπ᾿ ὄψιν της τὴν μακραίωνα ἐκκλησιαστικὴν παράδoσιν, ἥτις καὶ συμβάλλει τὰ μέγιστα εἰς τὴν ὀρθὴν ἑρμηνείαν τῆς Βίβλoυ. Δὲν εἶναι δυνατὸν ἐξ ἄλλoυ νὰ ἀμφισβητηθῇ ὑπὸ τῆς ὀρθoδόξoυ βιβλικῆς ἐπιστήμης, ὅτι γνήσιoν κριτήριoν τῆς ἑρμηνείας τῆς Ἁγίας Γραφῆς εἶvαι ἡ δoγματικὴ παράδoσις τῆς ᾿Εκκλησίας.” 27  A penetrative analaysis of the liturgical aspect of the New Testament can also be found in K. Nikolakopoulos, “Funktion und Hermeneutik der Heiligen Schrift in der orthodoxen Liturgie,” Heiliger Dienst, Österreichisches Liturgisches Institut 1.72 (2018), 30–​40. 28 K. Nikolakopoulos, “Das Neue Testament als hymnologische Quelle in der Orthodoxen Kirche,” Θεoλoγία 61 (1990), 16. In addition, I refer the reader to the specific work of J. M. Nielen, Gebet und Gottesdienst im Neuen Testament: Eine Studie zur biblischen Liturgie und Ethik, 2. Aufl. (Freiburg: Herder, 1963).

296   Konstantin Nikolakopoulos

Selected Pedagogical Features of the New Testament Using the Example of the Parables The extraordinary meaning and the invaluable worth of the New Testament can be found—​ among other perspectives—​in a particularly distinctive way within its pedagogic function, which is carried within every Christian, from the first Patriarch to the last faithful. A special tool for effective impact of Christian pedagogy is its rhetoric narrative, which utilizes concrete means of expression. However, before we refer to the special rhetoric technique of the Holy Scripture, namely the parables, I would like to briefly turn to rhetoric in general and to the rhetoric figures of the holy writings, which enrich the New Testament both in its narrative and its poetic form. Within the frame of a modern philological-​hermeneutical treatment of the writings of the New Testament a not-​to-​be-​undervalued meaning is granted to the engagement with certain rhetoric elements, that are present in the structural development of these writings.29 The gospels or the epistolary literature of the New Testament is the written testimony of the authentic meeting with the God-​Man Jesus. They transmit the redeeming rendition of penance and salvation, which was put in effect through the incarnation of the Logos-​God, explicitly through the notable rhetoric means of expression in a pedagogic yet effective way. The writings of the New Testament reveal without a doubt several rhetorical forms in common speech, that do their part to contribute to the content wealth of Christian prayer. Every author, by using his own expressions, underlines the message of the teachings of the Son of God in his own way.30 A very important and fundamental role for the linguistic expressions and the theological contents of the New Testament is played by the rhetorical figure of “irony,” which will be examined here from a purely rhetorical point of view and unlinked to its mundane and negatively connotative meaning. Rhetorical irony is not called a figure of speech, which is used to mock and humiliate the opposite, but is rather a rhetorical figure of thought, with which to assign emphasis and a didactic tone to statements. Irony, which is defined as expressing the opposite of what is actually meant,31 constitutes the most fundamental form of indirect interaction between the speaker and the listeners. The different books of the New Testament contain not rarely characteristic passages filled with rhetorical irony. A fundamental frame of usage of this figure is also the speeches of Jesus, in which irony is invested with remarkable pedagogic features. The use of rhetorical irony in the words of Jesus passed down by the evangelists distinguishes these texts further. Our Lord, as the supreme authority, as the sovereign of

29  See in this regard A. Wilder, The Language of the Gospel: Early Christian Rhetoric (New York: Harper & Row, 1964). 30  See a penetrative analysis of this subject in the dissertation of K. Nikolakopoulos, Καινή Διαθήκη καί Ρητορική. Τά ρητορικά σχήματα διανοίας στά Ἱστορικά βιβλία τῆς Καινῆς Διαθήκης (Katerini: Tertios Publications, 1993). 31  Compare [Aristotle], Ῥητορική πρὸς Ἀλέξανδρον 21, 1434a, 17, ed. H. Rackham (London, 1957).

The New Testament in the Orthodox Church    297 faith and life, does not hesitate in his daily, didactical speeches to make use of the rhetorical figure of thought that is irony as well, without devastating or hurting. In doing so—​in accordance with the Socratic method of irony and even more effectively32—​he teaches and educates in a genuinely Christian sense. The respective passages of the Gospel give clear testimony to this. Properly used, rhetorical irony does not humiliate, but instead emphasizes the salvific message und is educational.33 One of the impressively “harrowing” pedagogical ironies is transmitted in a logion, meaning a dictum of Jesus, which the Messiah directs toward a heathen woman, a Syrophoenician. This woman asked the Messiah to heal her demon-​possessed daughter, to which Jesus at first rebukes with the words: “It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs” (comp. Mt 15:26; Mk 7:27). Seeing as we all know the continuation of this story, we are able to understand the rhetorical pedagogic trial that Jesus performed on this woman. At this point, I do not delve deeper into the additional rhetorical figures of the Scripture, but rather just mention some of the more important ones: One such example is the Oxymoron, which is defined as the syntactical connection between two immediately neighboring antithetical terms or expressions.34 For example, contained within the Second Letter to the Corinthians is a remarkable Paulinian oxymoron: “for when I am weak, then am I strong” (2 Cor 12:10). Regarding this, Paul wrote, that he had received great revelations (2 Cor 12:1–​4), yet God also permitted that great trials befell him. One of these, this great weakness, constantly accompanied and particularly haunted him. It limited the apostle in his task and clearly visualized his limitations, yet also strengthened his faith tremendously. The rhetorical figure of “Paradoxon” distinguishes itself by containing opposing and apparently contradictory meanings, that mask a sense of reason, which, though seemingly irrelevant and inconceivable to the inattentive onlooker, is in fact the foundation of the entire rhetorical figure of thought.35 One of the numerous and explosive paradoxes of Jesus Christ is formed by the following logion: “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God” (Mt 19:24). This expression is of fundamental importance, if one wishes to understand the relationship between Jesus and wealth. He paints a strong, even hyperbolic picture, in order to show that wealth and the kingdom of God do not match. And we should not try to diminish this sentiment as it can be found very often in the sermons of Jesus. This is evident when he says that one cannot serve God and Mammon—​meaning wealth,36 or when he demands seemingly impossible renouncement of wealth from the young rich man.37 The rhetorical figure of “Hyperbole” also shows a remarkable amount of use in these writings of the New Testament. The morphologic existence of the hyperbole38 reaches its 32  See also K. Nikolakopoulos, “Aspekte der ‘paulinischen Ironie’ am Beispiel des Galaterbriefes,” Biblische Zeitschrift 2, 45 (2001), 195–​196. 33  More examples of rhetorical irony: John 2:19; John 3, 10; Mt 26:45; Mk 14:41 (vgl. Lk 22:46); John 4:48; John 6:26; John 8:7; Lk 11:41; Mk 12:34. 34  See also H. Lausberg, Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik (Munich: Hueber, 1973), 398. 35  See also the Dum informative writing of A. Duhm, Paradoxe Jesusworte in der Predigt (Leipzig: Eger & Sievers, 1927). 36  Comp. Mt 6:24. 37  Comp. Mk 10:27. 38  See more in J. Dubois, F. Edeline, J.-​M. Klinkenberg, P. Minguet, F. Pire, and H. Trinon, Rhétorique générale (Liége, 1982), 71.

298   Konstantin Nikolakopoulos zenith in the speeches of the teacher, Jesus. The “exaggeration,” as rhetorical “vestment” of the numerous didactic Jesus’s dicta, is not a simple, superficial technique of the author, but rather his endeavor to vividly and subtly accentuate his pedagogic words.39 Likewise, “Wordplay” (Λoγoπαίγvιov), according to which similarly sounding—​but not synonymous—​words or expressions are put next to each other, contributes through its rhetorical impact to the enrichment of the respective expression.40 This figure is never used within the confines of polemic dialogue; it serves exclusively to emphasize and intensify its contents.41 The “rhetorical Question,” finally, is among the most important rhetorical figures of thought in the texts of the New Testament. It appears either as a simple question, that automatically contains the answer, or as a combination of question and answer;42 in this last case its rhetorical impact is stronger. In addition to the common rhetorical questions, Jesus makes use of the special form of the rhetorical disarming-​question without hesitation. Within the frame of polemic dialogue, he also uses this rhetorical question as a silencing answer to an appropriate question of his interlocutor, as well as an indirect instruction of the listeners.43 “The Parable” constitutes one of the most interesting narrative techniques of the pedagogue and teacher Jesus Christ. It constitutes a short narration, which our savior uses in order to proclaim the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven in an understandable manner. Through the usage of images and everyday situations Christ shows us the real reason of things. He reveals to us the acting God, who steps inside our life and leads us in this pedagogical manner into his kingdom. This special narrative technique of the Holy Scripture drew, from the very beginning, the attention, and the interest of the church fathers. In order to illuminate the deeper meaning of such parabolic narratives, they did not limit themselves to the dry, superficial research of the text, but rather, being open minded, they used the allegoric method of exegesis. It is so that the church fathers understand the parables of Jesus within the Gospel as allegories, which themselves are explained or rather laid-​out by either the Lord himself or within the context of the biblical text.44 This way, they proclaim, wherever the scripture contains allegoric speech, it offers the disclosure for this allegory itself. In the parables of the gospel the central message of “salvation” rules, which in effect also forms the core of the entire Lucanian theology. Anthropology, soteriology, or eschatology all revolve around the salvation of Man. In no other gospel but Luke’s does the element of the love of Jesus for the lost surface so firmly and distinctly. In the third synoptic gospel, which is remarkably close to the social und societal hardships, Jesus is proclaimed as the one who has come to save all humans marked by suffering.45 Chapter 15 is characteristic of 39 

See also the striking passages Mt 3:11; Mk 9:43–​47; Lk 10:11. See more in W. Bujard, Stilanalytische Untersuchungen zum Kolosserbrief als Beitrag zur Methodik von Sprachvergleichen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1973), 170. 41  The following passages are cited as examples: Mt 12:35; Mk 1:16–​17; John 8:15–​16. 42 More comments can be found in H. F. Plett, Textwissenschaft und Textanalyse, 2nd ed. (Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer, 1979), 302. 43  Striking rhetorical questions by Jesus in: Lk 14:34; Mt 7:16; Mk 3:33; 8:17–​18. 44  Further discussion in K. Nikolakopoulos, Die “unbekannten” Hymnen des Neuen Testaments: Die orthodoxe Hermeneutik und die historisch-​kritische Methode (Aachen: Shaker Verlag, 2000), 21–​22. 45  See also K. Nikolakopoulos, Das Neue Testament in der Orthodoxen Kirche: Grundlegende Fragen einer Einführung in das Neue Testament, 2nd ed. (Berlin: Litt Verlag, 2014), 141–​142. 40 

The New Testament in the Orthodox Church    299 this context, with three symbolic “parables of the lost” (Parable of the Lost Sheep, Parable of the Lost Coin, and Parable of the Prodigal Son). It is not by accident that within the synoptic gospels it is only in Luke that the words “Redeemer,” “Savior” (Greek: σωτήρ, Lk 2:11; in Lk 1:47 in God), and “Salvation” (Greek: σωτηρία, Lk 19:9 as well as Lk 1:69.71.77) are written. As another example from the first synoptic gospel I would like to present a short logion of our Lord from the well-​known Sermon of the Mount, which can also serve as an insightful parable: “Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house” (Mt 5:14–​15). This very famous parable “about the light of the world” contains the required key-​word: “light,” which is primarily Jesus. This is the light, that is within us Christians as well and which we follow all our life, so that we may move in the right direction. Through Christ shines the glory of God unto the face of Man. He wants that we ourselves shine from within, meaning that we become true light, so that we may bring light to others. He who has found great truth and insight or great joy, has to pass it on, for he cannot keep it for himself. Such great gifts are never meant for one alone. Within Christ the great light has arisen for us. We must not hide it under a bushel, but rather lift it out of its candleholder, so that with it we may illuminate the whole world.

Conclusion The hermeneutic tradition of the eastern church does not only allow for scientific research, but rather demands it. Characteristic is a pertinent statement by John Chrysostom, who refers to the biblical text: “For it must be ascertained, who the author is, when and where it was written.”46 With this, however, the orthodox way of exegesis is not exhausted. In order to attain a comprehensive understanding of the New Testament, we should approach the holy writings from various angles. In addition to their pedagogical function, all rhetorical texts of the holy authors contribute to the theological immersion into the redemptory sense of the writings. This stands out especially in correlation to the unchallengeable force of the language of the teacher-​ Jesus, which undoubtedly exhibits an unshakable diachronic validity. Here the didactic-​ pedagogical character of the writings of the New Testament can be recognized more clearly; however, the use of rhetorical figures of thought hints at this fact, especially since, thanks to these rhetorical elements, pedagogical and consequentially anthropological-​soteriological perspectives have to be attributed to the “spirit” of the writings. The exegete who participates in the liturgical life of the church and breathes the grace of the Holy Spirit, uses the methods as tools and is aware that he does not conduct a personal, subjective exegesis, but instead continues the hermeneutic tradition of the whole church. It is through the orthodox hermeneutic that the elements of traditionalism and churchliness are connected to scientific reasoning in a dynamic and nonconservative, but rather diachronic manner. 46 

John Chrysostom, In Scriptionem Altaris et in Principium Actorum 1: PG 51,71.

300   Konstantin Nikolakopoulos

Bibliography Agouridis, Savvas, Ἑρμηνευτική τῶν ἱερῶν κειμένων (Athens: Artos Zois, 2000). Barrois, Georges A., Scripture Readings in Orthodox Worship (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1977). Belezos, Constantinos, Χρυσόστομος καί Ἀπόστολος Παῦλος. Ἡ χρονολογική ταξινόμηση τῶν παύλειων ἐπιστολῶν. 2nd Edition (Athens: Edition Diegese, 2005). Breck, John, Scripture in Tradition: The Bible and Its Interpretation in the Orthodox Church. (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2001). Galitis, Georgios, “Historisch-​kritische Bibelwissenschaft und orthodoxe Theologie.” Études theólogiques de Chambésy 4 (1984), 109–​125. Karavidopoulos, Ioannes, “Η ερμηνεία της Καινής Διαθήκης στην Ορθόδοξη Εκκλησία.” In: Ioannes Karavidopoulos, Βιβλικές Μελέτες (Biblike Bibliotheke 16), Volume 1. (Thessaloniki: P. Pournaras, 2000). Kesich, Veselin, “The Orthodox Church and Biblical Interpretation.” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 37 (1993), 343–​351. Konstantelos, Demetrios I., “The Holy Scriptures in Greek Orthodox Worship.” The Greek Orthodox Theological Review 12.1 (1966), 7–​83. Nikolakopoulos, Konstantin, Die “unbekannten” Hymnen des Neuen Testaments: Die orthodoxe Hermeneutik und die historisch-​kritische Methode: Exegetische und theologische Deutung neutestamentlicher Stellen unter Berücksichtigung des orthodoxen Kultus (Aachen: Shaker Verlag, 2000). Nikolakopoulos, Konstantin, “An Orthodox Critique of Some Radical Approaches in New Testament Studies.” The Greek Orthodox Theological Review 47 (2002), 337–​353. Nikolakopoulos, Konstantin, Das Neue Testament in der Orthodoxen Kirche: Grundlegende Fragen einer Einführung in das Neue Testament. 2nd edition (Berlin: LIT Verlag, 2014). Nikolakopoulos, Konstantin, “Verständnis und Interpretation der Heiligen Schrift in der Orthodoxen Kirche.” In: Nadine Hamilton (Ed.), Sola Scriptura: Die Heilige Schrift als heiligende Schrift (Beihefte zur Ökumenischen Rundschau 116) (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2017, 129–​144). Nikolakopoulos, Konstantin, “Funktion und Hermeneutik der Heiligen Schrift in der orthodoxen Liturgie.” In: Heiliger Dienst, Österreichisches Liturgisches Institut, Volume 72 (Salzburg: Verlag St. Peter, 2018, 30–​40). Pentiuc, Eugen J., The Old Testament in Eastern Orthodox Tradition (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2014). Pentiuc, Eugen J., Hearing the Scriptures: Liturgical Exegesis of the Old Testament in Byzantine Orthodox Hymnography (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2021). Stylianopoulos, Theodore, The New Testament: An Orthodox Perspective. Volume One: Scripture, Tradition, Hermeneutics (Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2002). Stylianopoulos, Theodore, “Scripture and Tradition in the Church.” In: Mary M. Cunningham and Elizabeth Theokritoff (Eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Orthodox Christian Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009, 21–​34). Vassiliadis, Petros, “Scriptural Authority in Early Christian Hermeneutics.” In: Μνήμη, Festschrift for I. E. Anastasiou (Thessalonica: University Press, 1982, 105–​108).

Pa rt I V

TOWA R D A N ORT HOD OX H E R M E N E U T IC S

Chapter 19

Toward an Ort h od ox Hermene u t i c Theodore G. Stylianopoulos We make the Holy Scriptures the rule and measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve only that which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings.1 —​St. Macrina, the Cappadocian

Hermeneutics plural aims at analysis of the contextual factors, assumptions, and methods of interpretation of any text, event or subject. Hermeneutic singular denotes a specific hermeneutical theory appropriate to a particular area of study or tradition or faith community. Orthodox biblical scholars and theologians, prompted by questions modernity has raised about the scriptures and the Christian heritage, have written extensively in the area of hermeneutics.2 What follows is an appraisal of major Orthodox proposals in biblical hermeneutics, starting with the indispensable biblical and patristic grounding.

1  Cited by Jaroslav Pelikan, Christianity and Classical Culture (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993) 220. 2  For bibliography, see Paul L. Gavrilyuk, Georges Florovsky and the Russian Religious Renaissance (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014); Alexandrev I. Negrov, Biblical Interpretation in the Russian Orthodox Church (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008); and Theodore Stylianopoulos, The New Testament, An Orthodox Perspective (Brookline: Holy Cross, 1997).

304   Theodore G. Stylianopoulos

Biblical and Patristic Foundations The foundations of Orthodox hermeneutics are grounded in Jesus and the apostolic Church. While Jesus disputed with trained scribes over some texts (Mark 10:2–​9; 12:18–​ 27), he generally approached the Jewish scriptures in the spirit of a prophet, invoking God’s Spirit and claiming an authority even higher than that of the scriptures (e.g., Mat 5:21, 27, 33). His words carried powerful hermeneutical premises that became normative in the Christian tradition. First, Jesus viewed the scriptures as a holy book, filled with inspired words, commandments, images, and symbols, revealing the mystery of the living God. Second, Jesus held that the scriptures prophetically testified to his own ministry, enacted in the power of God’s Spirit (Mat 11:3–​6; Luke 4:17–​21, 11:20). He spoke of his ministry as the fulfillment of Israel’s legacy, a new blood covenant, inaugurating the long-​awaited epoch of redemption (Mat 5:17; Mark 14:24–​25; Luke 16:16). And third, Jesus presented himself as God’s final agent of salvation, the eschatological revealer of God’s will, and thus the authoritative interpreter of the scriptures (Mat 5:21–​22; 11:27; Mark 8:38; 10:5–​9; Luke 24:27). All these themes and premises, enshrined in the canonical Gospels, became hermeneutical markers of the apostolic gospel tradition. The early Church formed around apostolic leaders such as Peter, John, James, Barnabas, Paul, and their associates, and later still others, known and unknown, in the influx of Gentile Christians. All these figures and their followers passed on traditions and writings that eventually became a second volume of the scriptures, the New Testament. None of those leaders or texts elaborated explicit hermeneutical principles or chose particular methods of interpretation. The New Testament writings exhibit rhetorical styles and exegetical methods—​midrash, pesher, typology, allegory, literal interpretation—​already known in Judaism and the wider Hellenistic world. The distinctiveness of the New Testament documents lies in their implicit hermeneutical perspective shaped by the impact of Christ and the gift of the Spirit. The Jewish scriptures retained their authority as holy words of God (logia tou theou, Rom 3:2), now interpreted more and more as a Christian Bible, seen as massive prophecy of Christ and the Church (Acts 3:24; 5:29–​ 32; Rom 13:8–​9; 1 Cor 10:11; 1 Pet 2:9–​10). Similarly, the person and work of Jesus, and particularly his death and resurrection according to the core Christian message (the euangelion, Luke 24:47; Rom 1:1–​4; 1 Cor 15:3–​5), were proclaimed as God’s inauguration of a new covenant, a cosmic shift to the awaited age of new creation for all nations (Mat 28:19; Luke 24:44–​49; John 17:20–​23; Rom 1:5; 1 Cor 11:23–​26; 2 Cor 5:17; Eph 1:10). Further, the transformational experience in Christ and the Spirit generated powerful faith convictions that drove Christians to new and crucial hermeneutical moves: (1) worshipful devotion of Christ (Mat 28:17; John 20:28; Acts 7:55–​56; 1 Cor 8:6; Phil 2:11; Rev 5:12–​13);3 (2) use of triadic forms to express the mystery of God (Mat 28:19; John 15:26; 2 Cor 13:13), and (3) unprecedented steps of freedom from the Mosaic law. All these decisive elements were, once again, integrated into the Church’s apostolic tradition as

3  See Larry W. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003).

Toward an Orthodox Hermeneutic    305 hermeneutical foundations of Christian life and thought in the gradual separation of the Church from Judaism. At the fulcrum of the apostolic hermeneutical dynamics was the Apostle Paul. Paul was driven by a prophetic hermeneutical perspective similar to that of Christ, and not by any new or single method of interpretation. Paul’s deep commitment to the gospel shaped his creative and sweeping typological interpretations of the Jewish scriptures and of Israel’s history, now fulfilled in Christ and the Church (ekklêsia theou, 1 Cor 1:2, chaps 8–​10; Gal 3:1–​4:7; Rom, chaps 5–​8, 9–​11, 12). Paul’s methodology functioned as the expressive means, not the cause, of his powerful implicit hermeneutic, determined by his understanding of the implications of the gospel (2 Cor 4:5–​6, 16–​17), his apostolic claim to revelation (Gal 1:11–​17; Rom 11:13), as well as his profound sense of the indwelling of Christ and the Spirit (Phil 3:8–​11; Gal 2:20; 1 Cor 2:12–​13; Rom 8:14–​17). Authorized by his apostolic call, and invoking the mind of Christ (2 Cor 10:5), Paul interpreted his work as a Spirit-​filled ministry of a new covenant actualized by the Spirit, and contrasted to the written code of the Law (2 Cor 3:6).4 Thus, Paul became an advocate of the reception of Gentiles into the Church apart from adherence to the Mosaic law. What to others was apostasy (Acts 15:1; 21:21; Gal 2:11–​13), to Paul was testimony to “freedom in Christ” and “the truth of the gospel” (Gal 2:4, 14; Rom 3:29; 9:24; 15:9). His opponents could have claimed biblical authority for the eternal character of the covenant of circumcision (Gen 17:7, 13). For Paul, however, a “veil” of ignorance, removed only through faith in Christ and the Spirit, concealed from his rivals the true meaning of the scriptures (2 Cor 3:14–​18; Rom 11:8, 25). The endorsement of Paul’s mission by the apostolic council confirmed the momentous hermeneutical stance that Christ himself now formed the new center of life and thought, the Law having been fulfilled and terminated in Christ (Acts 15:28; Gal 2:6:10; Rom 10:4).5 The question of the continuity of the Church in postapostolic times has been a subject of much debate.6 Our concern here is with the apostolic churches around the Mediterranean that maintained a bond of unity through faith and rite; the exchange of letters and visits; mutual recognition of episcopal leadership; the calling of local and regional councils, and not least the gradual process of canonization of the Old and New Testaments. From a hermeneutical vantage point, given the undisputed fluidity and diversity of early Christianity, the upshot was this: The received apostolic traditions of worship, creedal confessions, preaching, teaching, pastoral practice, and collection of texts, were formed into more stable patterns of ecclesial life and thought within the communal hermeneutical context of the great Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. The critical hermeneutical compass in the struggle for ecclesial unity was the “rule of faith” (kanôn tês pisteôs), at the heart of which in turn was the gospel.7 In their creative functions, both the gospel and the doctrinal sense of the rule of faith acted simultaneously

4 

N. T. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, Book II (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013), 980–​984. Yet, God’s moral law abides absolute (Mat 5:22; 1 Cor 7:19; Gal 5:13–​14; 6:2, 10; Rom 2:13–​16). 6 The contrasting views of N. T. Wright and James D. G. Dunn are discussed in Theodore Stylianopoulos, The Making of the New Testament (Brookline: Holy Cross, 2014), 29–​34. See, further, Arland J. Hultgren, The Rise of Normative Christianity (Minneapolis: Fortress (1994), and Andreas J. Köstenberger and Michael J. Kruger, The Heresy of Orthodoxy (Wheaton: Crossway, 2010). 7  I argue the case in The Making of the New Testament, 125–​132, and more recently The Apostolic Gospel (Brookline: Holy Cross, 2015), 17–​25. 5 

306   Theodore G. Stylianopoulos as dynamic celebrations of the new creation in Christ and the Spirit, as well as expressions of creedal confessions and key truth claims of faith. For example, over against the range of innumerable sects from the Gnostics to the Arians, the Christians loyal to the great Church confessed the One true God and Creator, and Father of Jesus Christ; the person and work of Christ truly incarnate, truly dying and rising, and truly reigning in the fullness of divine glory; the gift of the Spirit energizing the Church as the Body of Christ; the hope of the resurrection of the dead; the goodness of creation now being transformed; and the experience of the new creation interpreted in diverse soteriological metaphors and concepts (e.g., redemption, justification, reconciliation, sanctification, rebirth, and theôsis). The organic bond between the apostolic gospel and the rule of faith is demonstrated by comparing their multiple hermeneutical functions in the light of Paul Blowers’s definition of the rule of faith. According to Blowers, the rule of faith may be defined by the following multiple dynamic hermeneutical functions: * as embodying the authority of church tradition to expound scriptural revelation; * as a doctrinal principle latent or implicit in Scripture and serving as the criterion of interpretation; * as an emerging strategy of rational argument from, by, and for the integrity of the Christian faith; * and as rhetorical narrative, or dramatic principle exhibiting the governing “plot” tying together the Old and New Testaments and playing out in the church’s foreground.8 Each of these hermeneutical functions of the rule of faith is also true of the gospel, as follows: * The gospel acts as authoritative church tradition and interpretative key to scriptural revelation (Rom 1:17–​18; 1 Cor 15:1–​2; Gal 1:6–​9). * The gospel is discerned as prophetically latent or implicit in the Jewish scriptures (Rom 1:2) and functions as the criterion of interpretation of those scriptures (Rom 10:5–​13; Luke 24:27, 44–​49). * The gospel serves as a strategy of reasoned discourse from, by, and for the integrity of the Christian faith (John 5:19–​23; Acts 15:7–​21; Rom 5:1–​11; 12:1–​8). * The gospel also functions as the narrative bond connecting the old and new covenants, and by extension the two developing written versions of the covenants, now playing out in the life of the Church (John 15:1–​8; Acts 13:16–​4 1; Rom 5:12–​21; 1 Cor 10:11). To sum up: the historical and theological continuity between gospel and the rule of faith establishes the organic hermeneutical bond that holds together (1) the Old and New Testament scriptures as the Christian Bible, (2) the expanding tradition of the Christian exegetical and theological heritage, and (3) the growth of the great Church—​a truly astounding historical achievement of unity in diversity.

8  Paul Blowers, “Scripture and the Fathers,” in the Wiley Blackwell Companion to Patristics, ed. Ken Parry (Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2015), 356.

Toward an Orthodox Hermeneutic    307 For their part, the church fathers employed methods of interpretation drawn from contemporary culture, such as typology, allegory, and also literal/​grammatical exegesis increasingly required for contextual interpretation of disputed texts.9 What was new among the church fathers was a heightened sense of hermeneutical awareness. Origen had expert knowledge of philology and philosophy. Athanasius is said to have taken up philosophy to face the Arian menace. The Cappadocian fathers employed the critical methodologies of their age when interpreting Homer or the Bible and, in a telling insight, conceded that the ultimate authority of Old Testament texts resided in “the precise meaning of the Hebrew phrases” (akribeia tôn hebraikôn lexeôn)!10 Modern scholars have sometimes classified the church fathers into Alexandrian and Antiochene “schools,” the former devoted to allegory and the latter to typology. In fact, no sharp categories are warranted. Both sides affirmed the historical grounding of biblical texts and that the texts carried symbolic meanings beyond what meets the eye. The enhanced patristic hermeneutical awareness yielded explicit hermeneutical insights and theories bequeathed to the Christian tradition. Justin Martyr was the first to relativize the grand unity of scripture by discerning a tripartite substantive differentiation in the Old Testament as prophecy, eternal moral law, and temporary historical legislation for Jews.11 Irenaeus developed a comprehensive hermeneutical vision of the organic relations between scripture as interpreted scripture, the Church as the communal context of interpretation, and the normativity of the received apostolic tradition of the gospel and the rule of faith—​ all interactive and upholding the salvation-​historical “plot” (hypothesis) of the scriptures, its center being Christ.12 The great Origen formulated an enduring vision of Christian education (paideia), centered on Christ and the scriptures. He proposed a three-​tiered hermeneutical theory based on the schema of body, soul, and spirit, although neither did he, nor later interpreters, follow it with any regularity.13 Later, the Cappadocian fathers worked with a philosophically nuanced hermeneutic, debating the relations between faith and reason, that is, between the experiential and discursive aspects of the knowledge of God, seeking to relate the data of revelation to contemporary scientific thought.14 The crowning of this immense exegetical and theological patristic legacy, and the hermeneutical summation of the apostolic and patristic tradition regarding the mystery of God, the Church, and salvation, was the Nicene-​Constantinopolitan Creed.15

9  For

a review of the patristic legacy, see the Wiley Blackwell Companion to Patristics and Pelikan, Christianity and Classical Culture. 10  Cited by Pelikan, Christianity and Classical Culture, 221. 11  See further, Theodore Stylianopoulos, Justin Martyr and the Mosaic Law (Missoula: SBL, 1975) 51–​ 68 and 153–​163. 12  Wiley Blackwell Companion to Patristics, 71–​83; James L. Kugel and Rowan A. Greer, Early Biblical Interpretation (Philadelphia: Westminster (1986) 109–​113; and Bertrand de Margerie, S.J., An Introduction to the History of Exegesis: The Greek Fathers (Petersham: Saint Bede’s Publications, 1993) 51–​57. 13  Wiley-​Blackwell Companion to Patristics, 98–​110 and de Margerie, An Introduction to the History of Exegesis, 95–​116. 14  Wiley Blackwell Companion to Patristics, 309–​325; de Margerie, An Introduction to the History of Exegesis, 219; and Pelikan, Christianity and Classical Culture, 215–​230. 15  The significance of the Nicene Creed lies of course not in discursive logic but in terms of confession of faith; it is a liturgical song, expressing and celebrating biblical teaching on the mystery of the Trinity and salvation.

308   Theodore G. Stylianopoulos It may be helpful to be reminded of the hermeneutical premises behind the exegetical heritage of the church fathers:16 * The authority, primacy, and unity scripture, the record of revelation expressed through holy words, laws, prophecy, symbols, parables, metaphors, wisdom, and commandments. * The revelation in Christ and the Spirit as the center of salvation history and the supreme criterion of interpretation. * The interdependence of scripture, tradition, and interpretation in the light of the gospel and the rule of faith. * The divine and human nature of scripture, God’s word in human words, expressing God’s unfathomable accommodation (synkatabasis) to human language and understanding. * Use of contemporary methods of interpretation, while mindful of the revealed character and the soteriological intention of the scriptures. * Attention to the contextual aim or intention (skopos) and coherence (akolouthia) of texts and of salvation history, interpreting the parts in the light of the whole and the whole in the light of the parts. * The edification of the faithful with full access to scripture as the overall purpose of interpretation. * The final authority of interpretation is the Church’s living tradition expressed, when necessary, through councils and reception by the whole Church. It is also useful to recall the patristic view of the personal attributes of the interpreter, completing the “mind” (phronêma) of the fathers. This is about the horizon of living faith whereby the written word of God becomes God’s transformative word in prayer, worship, study, preaching, and teaching. Christianity is not about texts as much as about a person—​ the mystery of Christ.17 Readers and interpreters of the Bible need to be in tune with the Holy Spirit, the chief Interpreter of Christ (John 16:13–​14). They need to be grounded in the practice of the evangelical virtues of faith, prayer, love of God’s word, love of neighbor, humility, repentance, and obedience. The transcendent reality of new creation (ta pragmata) signified by biblical texts (ta logia) are perceived only to the extent that human hearts and minds were cleansed and illuminated by grace. Dialectic has the capacity either to advocate or to corrupt the truth. Reason of itself, apart from the action of grace, is unable to break through the veil of the mysteries of God.18 Interpretation is prayerful charismatic activity, a God-​given contemplative vision (theôria), an act of mystical participation that is capable both of discerning the insights hidden in the texts and of experiencing their transforming

16  Adapted from Ioannis Panagopoulos, Hermêneia tês Haghias Graphês stên Ekklêsia tôn Paterôn, Vol. 1 (Athens: Akritas, 1991), 54–​58. 17  Henry Chadwick, “The Bible and the Greek Fathers,” The Church’s Use of the Bible, ed. E. E. Nineham (London: SPCK, 1963), 39. 18  Gregory the Theologian warns not to mistake reason’s inability to grasp the mysteries of God as deficiency in a scriptural truth of faith, Oration 29.9, cited by Frederick W. Norris, Faith Gives Fullness to Reasoning (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1991), v.

Toward an Orthodox Hermeneutic    309 power.19 Cyril of Alexandria referred to this experiential knowledge as “inclusion in itself of the whole power of the mystery and participation in the mystic blessing, whereby we are united to the living and life-​giving word.”20 Isaac the Syrian described it simply as “something like a noetic ray running between the lines.”21 Others referred to it as a stirring of the heart, a sudden awareness of and communion with the Lord’s presence, while pondering the meaning of a text.

Major Orthodox Hermeneutical Proposals Several major Orthodox hermeneutical paradigms have been proposed in modern times. The prevailing one is the “neo-​patristic synthesis” of Georges Florovsky (1893–​1979).22 By his double call for the liberation of Orthodox theology from Western influence on the one hand, and for the return to the church fathers on the other, Florovsky captured the imagination of Orthodox students as no other. To be sure, with the turn of the century, critical voices have been rising.23 But the critique itself, justified in significant ways, underscores the dominance of the model. Florovsky’s paradigm involves inseparable doctrinal and spiritual dimensions. The doctrinal dimension is defined by the patristic Trinitarian and Christological teaching, coined “perennial Christian Hellenism,” a vision of the mystery of God that pervades Orthodox worship and theology. The spiritual dimension is the personal life in Christ, energized by the Holy Spirit. Florovsky declared: “Apart from the life in Christ, theology carries no conviction, and, if separated from the life of faith, theology may easily degenerate into empty dialectics, a vain polylogia.”24 These two overlapping aspects, the doctrinal and the spiritual, Florovsky designated as the mind of the fathers, or the ecclesial mindset, or the ethos of the Orthodox Church—​the neopatristic vision that he himself embodied in his traditional outlook and scholarly work.

19 On

theôria, see John Breck, Scripture in Tradition (Crestwood: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2001), 36–​37, 43–​44. 20  Cited by Maurice Wiles, The Spiritual Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1960), 86. 21  The Ascetical Homilies of Saint Isaac the Syrian (Brookline: Holy Transfiguration Monastery, 1984), 6. 22 For Florovky’s intellectual journey and place in Orthodox theology, see Gavrilyuk, Georges Florovsky. For Florovsky’s proposal, see his articles: “Patristics and Modern Theology,” Procès-​verbaux du premier Congrès de Théologie orthodoxe a Athènes, ed. Hamilcar S. Alivisatos (Athens: Pyrsos, 1939), 238–​242; “The Legacy and Task of Orthodox Theology,” Anglican Theological Review 31 (2, 1949), 65–​7 1; “The Predicament of the Christian Historian,” Religion and Culture, ed. W. Leibrecht (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1959), 140–​166; and “The Ethos of the Orthodox Church,” The Ecumenical Review 12 (2, 1960), 183–​198, reprinted in Aspects of Church History: The Collected Works of Georges Florovsky, Vol. 4 (Belmont: Nordland, 1975), 11–​30. 23  See Paul Valliere, Modern Orthodox Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000); Pantelis Kalaitzidis, “From the ‘Return to the Fathers’ to the Need for a Modern Orthodox Theology,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 54 (1, 2010) 5–​36; and Gavrilyuk, Florovsky. 24  Florovsky, “The Ethos of the Orthodox Church,” Collected Works, Vol. 4, 17.

310   Theodore G. Stylianopoulos Florovsky’s approach, grounded in the biblical and patristic foundations, embraced key premises of international scholarship that have become virtual truisms in Orthodox theology.25 He affirmed the historical character of scripture, the word of God in human idiom, and rejected biblical fundamentalism. He appealed to the symbiotic relationship of scripture and tradition, and offered general definitions of the two. Scripture is the record of revelation, the image of truth, not truth itself, and yet, as a canonical record, the supreme criterion of doctrine. Tradition is not about the antiquity of rituals and customs, but about theological truth itself, expressed in the salvific experience of the new creation in Christ and the Spirit, and corporately lived in worship. Tradition is a living and creative force, a “hermeneutical principle,” anchored on the gospel and the rule of faith, interpreting but adding nothing to scripture. Lastly, according to Florovsky, the goal of interpretation is proclamation of the full gospel, i.e., Christ and Church, actualized in sacrament, teaching, and preaching. These declarations are as welcome as they are generally true. The problem is that in Florovsky’s work there is little engagement with neuralgic issues pertaining either to the historical background or the specific application to Orthodox theology and life. The diversity of both scripture and the patristic writings, and thus of the complexity of their relationship, are not examined. The relations between gospel and rule of faith, especially in the light of the development of theological terminology and concepts, are not analyzed. The multiple functions and facets of tradition, differentiating what is truly abiding, from what is useful but temporary, and from what may be uncritical sociological force inclined to absolutize all beliefs and customs, are not probed. Not least, there is no exploration of the prophetic use of scripture as God’s word of life and judgment in the practice of the Orthodox churches, historically gravitating toward formalism and ethnicism. All these neuralgic issues remain urgent challenges for Orthodox scholarship even today. Then, there is the related critique about the “neo” in Florovsky’s neopatristic synthesis. The return to the fathers was to be, according to Florovsky, not a slavish repetition of their teachings, and lapsing into patristic fundamentalism, but rather an assimilation of their creative spirit, generating fresh insights. Florovsky warned of Orthodox isolation and called for self-​criticism. Nevertheless, paradoxically, he repudiated the efforts of Sergius Bulgakov and other Russian luminaries to engage Western intellectual currents, without himself offering alternative ways of constructive encounter with the West. Florovsky never ventured to break new ground, from a patristic perspective, on contemporary topics such as faith and science, justice and peace, capitalism and democracy, gender and sexuality. His focus was rather on a synthesis of patristic teaching under major topics such as Creation, Revelation, Incarnation, Redemption, and Church. Accordingly, it is right to ask whether Florovsky’s approach truly grappled with contemporary thought and culture, or whether it simply called for more concentrated patristic research.26 Most devastating in this regard is the appraisal of Brandon Gallaher, an empathetic critic, on two counts. Gallaher exposed not only Florovsky’s own unwitting debt to Western Idealism but also his unjustified wholescale rejection of Western thought, ignoring the historical coexistence and mutuality

25  Based on Florovsky’s articles in Bible, Church, Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox View (Belmont: Nordland, 1972). 26 Gavrilyuk, Florovsky, 262.

Toward an Orthodox Hermeneutic    311 of East and West, and thus rendering the neopatristic paradigm partly self-​blinding and unsatisfactory.27 In the end, Florovsky’s is a welcome general patristic, not a specifically biblical approach. His work focused on the patristic writings rather than the texts of the Bible. Apart from broad comments on typology and allegory, he did not deeply prove the details of even the patristic biblical hermeneutics. He was in fact discomforted by the entire field of biblical studies, apparently unable or unwilling to distinguish their intrinsic value from the radical claims of Protestant revisionist interpreters. He certainly knew of the work of eminent Orthodox biblical scholars such as Dimitri Bogdashevskii (1861–​1933),28 Evangelos Antoniadis (1882–​1962), and Vasileios Vellas (1902–​1969),29 but chose silence rather than engagement. He feared the claim that the biblical field somehow deserved its own integrity, but offered no positive Orthodox case for the right relationship between the biblical and patristic fields.30 He assumed, as many Orthodox thinkers still do today, that the biblical witness is wholly incorporated in the patristic, without remainder.31 Yet, the crucial question remains: if we are to go back to the church fathers, why not go back to the Bible itself, the primary source and supreme authority according to the fathers?32 A great lacuna thus marks the Florovskian paradigm: the failure to promote the patristic principle of the direct and full study of the Bible itself in Orthodox life and theology, including the use of contemporary methodologies. The scriptures, too, in their richness, complexity, and power as God’s word—​the countless texts, the innumerable actors and stories, all the wisdom and the good news—​deserve to be studied, just as much as the patristic texts, directly and thoroughly at their own historical and theological levels, as sources of creative thought and guidance in every generation. John Romanides (1927–​2001), a brilliant, if idiosyncratic, student of Florovsky, advocated a neopatristic hermeneutical model with a narrow focus, i.e., the ideal of the charismatic saint.33 For Romanides, the call to freedom from Western influence became a ferocious polemic against all things Western. Florovsky esteemed Augustine as an eminent doctor of the undivided Church. Romanides defined him as the fountainhead of all Western heresy.

27  Brandon Gallaher, “ ‘Waiting for the Barbarians’: Identity and Polemicism in the Neo-​ Patristic Synthesis of Georges Florovsky,” Modern Theology 27 (4, 2011), 659–​691. 28  See Negrov’s valuable survey of Russian biblical scholarship up to the first third of the twentieth century. 29 Antoniadis and Vellas presented weighty papers on biblical hermeneutics at the same Athens Conference (1936), where Florovsky first announced his own proposal. See, Alivisatos, ed. Procès-​ verbaux, 135–​143 and 143–​174. 30  Florovsky, “The Patterns of Historical Interpretation,” Anglican Theological Review 50 (2, 1968), 149–​152. 31 See, Exegesis and Hermeneutics in the Churches of the East, ed. Vahan S. Hovhanessian (New York: Lang, 2009) and What Is the Bible? The Patristic Doctrine of Scripture, eds. Matthew Baker and Mark Mourachian (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2016), where current Orthodox biblical studies are entirely ignored. 32  My question of long ago in The Greek Orthodox Theological Review 12 (3, 1967) and 17 (1, 1972). 33  Romanides’s proposal was presented in a lengthy lecture, “Critical Examination of the Applications of Theology” to the second world meeting of Orthodox theologians in Athens (1976) and published in Procès-​verbaux du deuxième Congrès de Théologie orthodoxe, ed. Savas Agourides (Athens: Eptalophos, 1978), 413–​441.

312   Theodore G. Stylianopoulos Through Augustine, according to Romanides, Western theology allegedly lapsed into biblical fundamentalism by identifying revelation itself with the literal words and concepts of the Bible. But this view was subsequently destroyed by modern biblical criticism in its assessment of the Bible as mere historical relic of the ancient Near East. Then followed, according to Romanides, another collapse in the Western worldview. Analytic philosophy and the rise of science repudiated the false security of the existence of universals and rejected the notion of immutable truth whether in the Bible or the cosmos. The consequences were devastating: total ignorance among Western peoples pertaining not only the Bible, but also the nature and experience of God’s revelation in their lives. All modern approaches to the study of scripture are thus disparaged as useless, if not outright fraudulent. Romanides countered with his own paradigm of the charismatic saint, viewed as an embodiment of the biblical prophet and apostle, recipients of direct and immediate revelation of the eternal Christ. The saint, quite apart from any formal training, but gifted with the mystical attribute of theôsis/​theôria, enjoys unerring experiential knowledge of God. The saint possesses a mystical cognition that transcends the biblical texts themselves and serves as an infallible criterion of their interpretation. Romanides regarded his paradigm as generally attested in the Church fathers, without however providing specific references. He also claimed that the paradigm bore resemblance to scientific experimental methodology, i.e., proposal and verification, because exegetical options could always be verified by consultation with living saints who possessed the gift of theôria. Alluring though it be due to Orthodox respect for saints and anti-​ Western bias, Romanides’s proposal fails on several counts.34 First, contrary to patristic hermeneutics, it rejects the direct study of scripture, including use of contemporary methodologies, fit to the nature and message of the Bible. Second, it thus stifles the hope of an authentic flowering of biblical studies, a patristic ideal, and undercuts the value of scholarship in the Church. Third, Romanides offers not a single church father as corroboration for his exclusivist proposal. The church fathers, while mindful of their illustrious teachers and predecessors, engaged the scriptures both directly and thoroughly by means of contemporary methodologies. Finally, individual saints cannot be placed as infallible authorities above the Bible, above the Councils, above the corporate witness of the Church. St. Symeon the New Theologian (949–​1022), a glowing charismatic, and Romanides’s probable prototype saint, is himself proof of the direct and full use of Scripture, and one who did not entirely exclude critique of his own teaching. He declared, “This, in my opinion, is the truth of the matter, and such is God’s counsel towards us. . . . You, on your part, must see and test that which we say.”35 John Breck (b. 1939), a biblical scholar with significant hermeneutical contributions to his credit, has laid out a patristic hermeneutical proposal in direct relation to biblical studies.36 While teaching the New Testament, and out of a sense of professional crisis, Breck discovered the patristic interpretative approach of theôria, expressed through allegory, typology, and 34 

For a detailed critique, see Stylianopoulos, The New Testament, 175–​185. C. J. deCatanzaro, trans., Symeon the New Theologian: Discourses (New York: Paulist, 1980), 354. See further, Theodore Stylianopoulos, “Holy Scripture, Interpretation, and Spiritual Cognition,” in Orthodox and Wesleyan Scriptural Understanding and Practice, ed. S. T. Kimbrough Jr. (Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2005), 55–​7 1. 36  John Breck, The Power of the Word in the Worshiping Church (Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1994). 35 

Toward an Orthodox Hermeneutic    313 chiasmus. He discerned that the rational, historical, and literary methodologies of modern biblical studies, concentrating on the original meaning of biblical texts, were mostly irrelevant to students, pastors, and readers of the Bible as God’s word. Breck then formulated the thesis that the true meaning and saving significance of scripture can be grasped only within “a closed hermeneutical circle,” i.e., the “great river” of tradition in which scripture is the main current and norm, but correctly interpreted only within that river. The proper Orthodox view of the two is “not Scripture or Tradition, or Scripture and Tradition, but Scripture in Tradition.”37 Much is commendable in Breck’s work—​the holy passion to interpret the Bible as God’s word, an analytical approach to patristic biblical hermeneutics, faithfulness to the Church and her tradition, as well as the emphasis on prayer and worship, the ecclesial context for the transformational appropriation of the biblical witness. Breck reacted to radical biblical scholarship, notably the notorious Jesus Seminar, which he mentions. The work of this group has, of course, been debunked by many Western scholars themselves, who by no means have lost sight of faith, the gospel, the authority of the Bible, prayer, and the Church. Breck appears to overlook the wealth of positive biblical knowledge derived from the results of biblical studies, easily accessible through lexica, dictionaries, journals, commentaries, and online. Further, Breck’s massive concern with the patristic theôria, operative through allegory and typology, misses the extensive patristic use of contextual grammatical exegesis in theological disputation, teaching, and preaching, notably in Athanasius, Cyril, Basil, and Chrysostom. The church fathers feature ample use of grammatical exegesis on the assumption of the sufficiency and clarity of the scriptures. They assumed that a person of good will could understand the plain meaning of a text, without always looking for a second deeper meaning, because the contextual meaning is sufficiently deep. Finally, with respect to Breck, the thesis of a closed hermeneutical circle regarding scripture and tradition needs rethinking. Biblical and patristic scholarship itself has amply demonstrated the indisputable organic interdependence of scripture and tradition. Yet, the canonization of scripture has distinguished the Bible as the supreme standard of truth, the criterion by which the river of tradition itself is subject to critique as necessary. Recall the words of St. Macrina: “We make the Holy Scriptures the rule and measure of every tenet.” The complex relations between scripture and tradition can actually be argued in terms of all three options: scripture “in” tradition, scripture “and” tradition, as well as scripture “versus” tradition. In all cases, what must be avoided is appeal to the authority and function of tradition in ways that would diminish scripture’s authority to critique tradition as may be appropriate.38 Breck’s commendable focus on patristic theôria needs reworking toward integration with the positive methods and aspects of contemporary biblical studies. Not all appeals to the treasure of the scriptures as received in the Orthodox tradition have been cast in opposition to historical-​critical research. In fact, currently, most Orthodox patristic and biblical scholars foster loyalty both to the patristic heritage and commitment to international historical-​critical studies of scripture. After World War II, Orthodox biblical studies have grown significantly, securing a permanent place in Orthodox universities,

37 Breck,

Scripture in Tradition, 4. For a more detailed assessments of Breck’s proposal, see St. Vladimir Theological Quarterly 48 (1, 2004), 159–​164, and Stylianopoulos, The New Testament, 168–​175. 38 

314   Theodore G. Stylianopoulos theological academies, and seminaries throughout the world. They understandably remain conservative in nature, and operate mostly in traditional societies, where the translation itself of scripture has proven problematic.39 Nevertheless, next to the assumed dominance of patristics, Orthodox biblical studies continue to develop without serious impediments. A striking development is that biblical scholars who are also Orthodox Christians now teach biblical studies in non-​Orthodox universities, colleges, and seminaries without personal or professional barriers.40 It is no surprise, therefore, that an elegant account of the organic interdependence of scripture and tradition, under the light of critical-​historical study, has been crafted by the respected biblical scholar and Orthodox Christian Edith Humphrey.41 Another example is the magisterial study The Old Testament in Eastern Orthodox Tradition by the biblical scholar and esteemed colleague Eugen Pentiuc.42 With clear affirmation of critical-​historical studies, Pentiuc draws open the vast horizon of the reception of the Old Testament in the Orthodox tradition, including the description of a tripartite hermeneutic. The “discursive” reception of the Old Testament engages the exegetical principles, methods, and significant samples of the patristic legacy. The “aural” reception appraises the use and interpretation of the Old Testament in the Church’s lectionary, liturgical feasts, and hymnology. And the “visual” reception appreciates the use and interpretation of the Old Testament across the riches of Orthodox iconography. Pentiuc’s work, and that of others,43 equally applicable to the New Testament, illustrates the boundless biblical wealth enshrined and celebrated in Orthodox worship and liturgical texts as sources for theological and pastoral instruction. Still, the question of a contemporary Orthodox biblical hermeneutic, one in full conversation with modern biblical studies, remains. The figure who dealt frontally with this challenge was Savas Agourides (1921–​2009), the dean of Orthodox biblical scholars in the twentieth century.44 Agourides’s hermeneutical approach, broadly shared by two other Greek scholars John Panagopoulos (1938–​1997) and Petros Vassiliadis (1945), advocated the liturgical context, notably the Eucharist, as the hermeneutical key to the scriptures. Their particular proposals, versions of the neopatristic model, may be regarded as the representative approach among Orthodox biblical scholars today. The landmark of Agourides’s career is the explicit and full endorsement of modern critical methodology within the scope of the neo-​patristic synthesis. He declared, “For us

39  See Stephen K. Batalden, Russian Bible Wars (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2013) and Michael Nomikos Vaporis, Translating the Scriptures into Modern Greek (Brookline: Holy Cross, 1994). 40 In the United States, for example, Edith Humphrey at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, John Fotopoulos at St. Mary’s College in Indiana, and George Parsenios at Princeton Theological Seminary. 41  Edith Humphrey, Scripture and Tradition (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013). 42  Eugen J. Pentiuc, The Old Testament in Eastern Orthodox Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014). Pentiuc holds the Archbishop Demetrios Chair of Biblical Studies at Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology, Brookline, MA. 43  Mary Ford, “Reflections on Reading the Scriptures as an Orthodox Christians,” Religions 8 (122, 2017), 1–​11 and Bruce N. Beck, “Unbinding the Book: Toward a Restoration of a Patristic Orthodox Hermeneutic,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 63 (2, 2019), 161–​189. 44  Savas Agourides, Hermêneutikê tôn Hierôn Keimenôn (Athens: Artos Zôês, 2000), 62. The first edition was published in 1979. For his views in English, see his “Biblical Studies in Orthodox Theology,” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 17 (Spring 1972), 51–​62.

Toward an Orthodox Hermeneutic    315 Orthodox, there is today no problem regarding the adoption of the modern philological, historical, and other methods in the study of the sacred texts. That is a given. The problem for us Orthodox today centers on the [right] meaning of the patristic exegetical inheritance.”45 According to Agourides, Orthodox interpreters cannot ignore the results of critical history and theology because “whatever is scientifically true is true for everyone. Only what is true is orthodox [sic.].”46 And again the amazing statement that “the historical-​critical method . . . as a method for the quest of truth, is an historic gift of God to humanity,” no matter that, at first, historical criticism appeared to dissolve the mystery of God.47 For Agourides, two problems define the hermeneutical issue. The first is the undefined task of the neopatristic synthesis by Orthodox thinkers. The patristic background is incontestable because the church fathers are, on the one hand, unsurpassed teachers of a synthetic approach, integrating exegesis with the theology, worship, and pastoral care. They at times indulge in excessive allegorical and mystical interpretations, and their specific exegetical observations may be faulty in specifics. Nevertheless, their overall exegesis is not faulty in substance because the fathers keep the mystery of God, and the mystery of salvation, front and center in the life of the Church. Also, schooled as they were in Hellenistic philology, they remain a rich source of grammatical and exegetical insights. On the other hand, the fathers never meant the study of their writings to replace direct access to scripture. The difficulty now is that, while the neopatristic model is invoked, what is often produced are repetitions of patristic teachings, which impedes a true renewal of the patristic approach today. Agourides provides no conceptual answer to this conundrum, but repeatedly highlights the urgent need to merge contemporary analytic methodology with the patristic synthetic approach in ways that might speak to people today.48 The second hermeneutical problem, according to Agourides, is deeper and sharper, operative not at the level of historical exegesis, but at the level of contemporary relevancy. It involves the “chasm” (chasma) or “distance” (apostasis) in worldviews between the Bible and modernity, a fact exposed by the long critical impact of the Enlightenment.49 Agourides surveys Western philosophical hermeneutics from Schleiermacher to Dilthey, and from Bultmann to Gadamer, but finds no clear answer. He too easily accepts the Enlightenment demand “to liberate the sacred texts from their ancient bonds [i.e., forms]” and to render their meaning in new forms.50 He appears to misconstrue the negative effects of historical criticism as being only temporary, e.g., the “newer European conceptions” (neoteres eurôpaïkes antilêpseis), such as in the case of the historical Jesus project refuted by Albert Schweitzer.51 However, the main problem is not one of only correctable passing misconceptions or ideological biases. Rather it is the false axiom of autonomous reason as the only criterion of truth, a tectonic shift of authority from biblical revelation to hypothetical universal truth adjudicated by reason alone. Repeatedly agonizing over the “chasm” between the biblical

45 Agourides,

Hermêneutikê, 62. Ibid., 421. 47  Ibid., 389. 48  Ibid., 68–​ 72, 399–​401, 420–​423. Agourides, 371, wrongly attributes to me Romanides’s position, whereas I am closer to that of Agourides. 49  Ibid., 18–​25, 368, 389, 421–​422. 50  Ibid., 389. 51 Ibid. 46 

316   Theodore G. Stylianopoulos and modern worldviews, Agourides appears to be burdened by the hermeneutical problem as set up by Bultmann and others, its resonance largely diminished in postmodernity. Agourides’s positive proposal follows the Florovskian model, but with focus on the Eucharist. He invokes an ecclesial, communal, and Eucharistic hermeneutical principle (hermêneutikê archê). Ecclesial in the sense of the continuity of the Church’s tradition, guided by the rule of faith and the authority of the Church to interpret her scriptures. Communal in the sense of the corporate nature of the reception and actualization of divine revelation in worship, over against any risky private reading and interpretation.52 And Eucharistic in the sense that the Eucharist is the supreme context in which the core soteriological tradition, the redemptive love of God in Christ, the gospel in sacramental action, is enacted and lived; and where the problem of the hermeneutical “chasm” is resolved.53 The driving force at the heart of this hermeneutical approach is worshipful prayer and devotion to the person of Christ.54 A similar approach, is advocated by Petros Vassiliadis, who declares, “The Eucharistic dimension is perhaps the only safe criterion” by which the Orthodox “read the Bible; the way they know, receive, and interpret the Bible.”55 So, too, John Panagopoulos puts his own seal on this model by lifting up an ideal view of the Church as “the living Bible of Christ” (Christou biblos empsychos), i.e., the Church itself, especially in worship, actualizing the fullness of Christ, the same transcendent mystery to which the biblical texts bear witness.56 For all three scholars, the ultimate comprehension and actualization of scripture’s soteriological testimony is the interpreter’s and the faithful’s participation in the salvific mystery itself in the present (i.e., through theôria), supremely operative by the action of the Holy Spirit in the Eucharist. A twofold critique may be presented. First, in its true nature and glorious challenge, the Eucharist actualizes mystical participation in the soteriological event of the crucified and risen Lord—​the ultimate goal of Orthodox hermeneutics. However, the Eucharist alone cannot serve as hermeneutical key for the intellectual task of interpretation in teaching and preaching, decisive ministries in themselves. For the latter essential task, informed as well as inspired teachers and preachers are needed. And that explains the complete silence of the church fathers regarding the Eucharist as a criterion for the interpretation of biblical texts, although presupposed in life. Second, a stunning admission of Agourides is that the “Eucharistic community” in its essential ministry over many generations has not actually “worked” (den leitourgêse) in healing wounded humanity. Instead, the Eucharistic community has uncritically allowed history to take the Church here and there, “even in the dark places of popular idolatry.”57 Agourides calls for rigorous self-​criticism, observing that the Holy Spirit acts as judge as well as advocate.58 He warns, “God forbid,” (pros Theou), do not

52  Lurking in the background is anxiety about the Zôȇ movement in Greece, a powerful renewal movement based on the Bible, highly influential at first, but then becoming moralistic and divisive. 53 Agourides, Hermȇneutikȇ, 386–​388, 406. 54  Ibid., 76–​7 7, 171, 357–​359, 379–​380, 384–​388. 55  Petros Vassiliadis, “Canon and Authority of Scripture: An Orthodox Hermeneutical Perspective,” Kimbrough, Orthodox and Wesleyan Scriptural Understanding and Practice, 27. 56  Ioannis Panagopoulos, in his introduction to the New Testament, Eisagôgê stên Kainê Diathêkê (Athens: Akritas, 1994), 439. A more detailed critique in Stylianopoulos, The New Testament, 224–​226. 57 Agourides, Hermêneutikê, 365. 58  Ibid., 410.

Toward an Orthodox Hermeneutic    317 confuse the mystical soteriological tradition with the general ecclesiastical traditions susceptible to ethnic populism and other corruptive habits.59 Agourides’s valuable book offers an amazing trove of historical and theological insights. However, the reliance on the Eucharist as the hermeneutical key in corporate Orthodox life is undercut by the regrettable fact that the Eucharist, precious jewel as it is, often leaves many Orthodox Christians unmoved and unchanged. Far from a magical charm, the Eucharist is a prayer event. And effective prayer requires not only communal but also personal/​individual faith, intentionality, and ascetic effort. Rather than antithetical, corporate and personal faith and study are mutually supportive in the Spirit’s mystical actualization of the divine realities (theoria), signified by the biblical and liturgical texts. For the stirring of personal and corporate faith, and subsequent resolute commitment to the life in Christ, something else is also absolutely essential: evangelization of the baptized by means of informed biblical teaching and preaching. “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach good news” (Rom 10:15; Isaiah 52:7)! “For the gospel is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes” (Rom 1:16). Shocking as it may sound, Orthodox scholars at the academy, and Orthodox teachers and preachers at the local community—​all of us might need to rethink to what extent we have truly comprehended the depth and power of the gospel and the urgency of evangelization, as transformational factors in the life of the Church.60

Conclusion All these proposals represent recitals of Florovsky’s neopatristic paradigm with variations. The commonality is fidelity to the authority of the Bible, the Church fathers, tradition, worship, the saints, and the life of prayer as indisputable elements in biblical study and interpretation. Orthodox theology, in its various aspects and tasks, cannot go beyond the biblical and patristic foundations, without losing its identity, its spirit, its gifts. Nevertheless, the scope of Florovsky’s paradigm requires reworking and enhancement in terms of three points: (1) full application of the patristic ideal of the authority and centrality of the Bible in Orthodox life and theology; (2) disavowal of sterile polemics against the West and critical engagement with contemporary culture and thought, as required by the shared human experience and the universal quest of truth; and (3) the formulation of an Orthodox hermeneutic (equally applicable to biblical and patristic texts) that maintains a critical balance of the historical, theological, and transformational tasks in the interpretation of texts. This latter goal has been my own scholarly burden over a lifetime, a hermeneutic involving three overlapping and interactive levels or dimensions or tasks, as follows.61 First, each biblical and patristic author deserves full respect, i.e., careful study in his or her own historical and literary context. This is indisputably the historical task, the dimension or level of exegesis in which not only historical and literary analysis but also the

59 

Ibid., 365–​368. I have tried to grapple with this urgent issue in The Way of Christ: Gospel, Spiritual Life and Renewal in Orthodoxy (Brookline: Holy Cross, 2002) and The Apostolic Gospel (2015). 61  For an extensive earlier version of my proposal, see Stylianopoulos, The New Testament, 187–​238. 60 

318   Theodore G. Stylianopoulos substantive theological and ethical teachings of the ancient authors merit full critical descriptive exposition at the level of the author’s own world. Here historical reason, stripped of Enlightenment positivist axioms and other possible biases, has primacy, employing empathetic study of the biblical or patristic author’s teaching and worldview within his or her own culture. What counts here is not whether the interpreter is Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox, but rather the ideal of honest and discerning contextual critical study aiming to honor the subject matter. Here is the intellectual ground on which each field, whether Old Testament, or New Testament, or Church fathers, can rightfully claim integrity as a field with its own hermeneutical considerations, methodology, and training—​not in separation but in distinction from the other fields. That this historical critical approach is possible and valuable is evident, as noted earlier, by the fact that faithful Orthodox scholars without personal or professional impediments teach biblical studies in non-​Orthodox universities, colleges, and theological schools in North America and Europe. Second, more complex is the normative task, the task of theological assessment, closely related to but distinct from the exegetical task. Here the exegetical findings, whether from biblical or patristic texts, are selected, critically compared, and interpreted in their abiding theological and religious significance. Here is where the abiding biblical and patristic witness creatively engages modern thought and culture. Here the hermeneutical focus shifts to the normative theological claims of the texts and, as well, to the vital interests of the interpreters, whose personal commitments are now not to be purged but to be honestly disclosed for debate in good faith. Thus, for interpreters working with positivist Enlightenment principles, the Bible may be no more than a historical resource of Western civilization. In contrast, for Christian interpreters, committed to the Church’s gospel and rule of faith, both centered on devotion to Jesus Christ,62 the Bible is a holy book of God’s self-​disclosure, bearing testimony to God’s life-​giving words. Here, the supreme criteria derive from the apostolic gospel of the incarnate, crucified, and risen Christ.63 At this normative theological level, the factors of faith and reason, theoria and mystical cognition, the interdependence of scripture, the fathers, and tradition, and not least, fidelity to the prophetic and evangelical witness of scripture, need to be rightly calibrated and granted respectively their due. Here, too, Orthodox theologians can assess the merits of philosophical hermeneutics as per the work of Gadamer.64 And third, there is the task of transformational application, inseparable from the previous two, but also distinct with its own hermeneutical factors and functions. This is the level where the exegetical and theological results, assessed through the lens of the gospel and the rule of faith, seek application and actualization. The nature of the application task is twofold. On the one hand, there is the conceptual task of identifying and naming urgent societal, ecclesial, and personal issues to be engaged from the standpoint of biblical and patristic teaching. On the other hand, there is the practical task of leadership, embrace of 62 

So, too, Agourides, Hermeneutike, 77. See further, Stylianopoulos, The Apostolic Gospel. 64  See, the challenge by A. E. Kattan, “Gadamer ‘ad portas,’ ” Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 66 (1–​2, 2014), 63–​7 1 and a possible Orthodox answer by John McGuckin, “Recent Biblical Hermeneutics in Patristic Perspective,” Sacred Text and Interpretation: Papers in Honor of Professor Savas Agourides, ed. Theodore G. Stylianopoulos (Brookline: Holy Cross Seminary Press, 2006). 63 

Toward an Orthodox Hermeneutic    319 responsibilities, development of programs and methods as well as oversight and follow-​ through, and not least lots of prayer and worship. Urgent here are focus on evangelization, healthy self-​criticism, heartfelt repentance, and resolute faith—​faith in Christ, faith in the Church as the community of his kingdom, and faith in the Holy Spirit, the chief Guide and Interpreter, who actualizes the blessings of the gospel in the corporate and personal life of theoria. This is the transformational level, embracing the entire context of Orthodox life and spirituality, including worship, the Eucharist, preaching and teaching, guided Bible studies, personal devotions, and pious customs. Here a huge amount of biblical and patristic renewal can occur, accommodated to the understanding even of children. No need to fret about undefined “chasms” between the ancient and modern worlds as much as about doing the actual work at hand, engaging the biblical and patristic texts in the light of contemporary challenges, and nurturing a community life worthy of Christ and his kingdom.

Bibliography Agourides, Savas. Hermêneutikê tôn Hierôn Keimenôn. Athens: Artos Zôês, 2000. Agourides, Savas. “Biblical Studies in Orthodox Theology.” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 17 (1972): 51–​62. Baker, Matthew, and Mourachian, Mark. What Is the Bible? The Patristic Doctrine of Scripture. Minneapolis: Fortress, Press, 2016. Batalden, Stephen K. Russian Bible Wars. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013. Beck, Bruce N. “Unbinding the Book: Toward a Restoration of a Patristic Orthodox Hermeneutic.” St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Quarterly 63 (2019): 161–​189. Blowers, Paul. “Scripture and the Fathers.” Wiley Blackwell Companion to Patristics. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2015: 355–​369. Breck, John. Scripture in Tradition: The Bible and Its Interpretation in the Orthodox Church. Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2001. Breck, John. The Power of the Word in the Worshiping Church. Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1994. Chadwick, Henry. “The Bible and the Greek Fathers.” The Church’s Use of the Bible: Past and Future, edited by E. E. Nineham. London: SPCK, 1963: 25–​39. deCatanzaro, C. J., trans. St. Symeon the New Theologian: Discourses. New York: Paulist Press, 1980. de Margerie, Bertrand, S.J. An Introduction to the History of Exegesis: The Greek Fathers. Petersham: Saint Bede’s Publications, 1993. Florovsky, Georges. Aspects of Church History. The Collected Works of Georges Florovsky. Belmont: Nordland, 1975. Florovsky, Georges. Bible, Church, Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox View; The Collected Works of Georges Florovsky. Belmont: Nordland, 1972. Florovsky, Georges. “The Patterns of Historical Interpretation.” Anglican Theological Review 50 (1968): 149–​152. Florovsky, Georges. “The Ethos of the Orthodox Church.” The Ecumenical Review 12 (1960): 183–​198. Florovsky, Georges. “The Predicament of the Christian Historian.” Religion and Culture, edited by W. Leibrecht. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1959: 140–​166.

320   Theodore G. Stylianopoulos Florovsky, Georges. “The Legacy and Task of Orthodox Theology.” Anglican Theological Review 31 (1949): 65–​7 1. Florovsky, Georges. “Patristics and Modern Theology.” Procès-​verbaux de premier Congrès de Théologie orthodoxe a Athènes, edited by Hamilcar S. Alivisatos. Athens: Pyrsos, 1939: 238–​242. Gallaher, Brandon. “‘Waiting for the Barbarians’: Identity and Polemicism in the Neo-​Patristic Synthesis of Georges Florovsky. Modern Theology 27 (2011): 659–​691. Ford, Mary. “Reflections on Reading the Scriptures as an Orthodox Christian. Religions 8 (2017): 1–​11. Gavrilyuk, Paul L. Georges Florovsky and the Russian Religious Renaissance. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. Hovhanessian, Vahan S., ed. Exegesis and Hermeneutics in the Churches of the East. New York: Lang, 2009. Hultgren, Arland J. The Rise of Normative Christianity. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994. Humphrey, Edith M. Scripture and Tradition: What the Bible Really Says. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013. Hurtado, Larry W. Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Press, 2003. Isaac the Syrian. Ascetical Homilies. Brookline: Holy Transfiguration Monastery, 1984. Kattan, Assaad Elias. “Gadamer ‘ad portas’: The Orthodox Understanding of Tradition Challenged by Hermeneutics.” Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 66 (2014): 63–​7 1. Köstenberger, Andreas J., and Kruger, Michael J. The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture’s Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity. Wheaton: Crossway, 2010. Kugel, James L., and Greer, Rowan A. Early Biblical Interpretation. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1986. McGuckin, John Anthony. “Recent Biblical Hermeneutics in Patristic Perspective: The Tradition of Orthodoxy,” Sacred Text and Interpretation: Perspectives in Orthodox Biblical Studies; Papers in Honor of Professor Savas Agourides, edited by Theodore G. Stylianopoulos. Brookline: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2006: 293–​324. Negrov, Alexander I. Biblical Interpretation in the Russian Orthodox Church. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Norris, Frederick W. Faith Gives Fullness to Reasoning. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1991. Pelikan, Jaroslav. Christianity and Classical Culture. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993. Panagopoulos, Ioannis. Eisagôgê stên Kainê Diathêkê. Athens: Akritas, 1994. Panagopoulos, Ioannis. Hermêneia tês Haghias Graphês stên Ekklêsia tôn Paterôn, Vol. 1. Athens: Akritas, 1991. Pentiuc, Eugen J. The Old Testament in Eastern Orthodox Tradition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. Pentiuc, Eugen J., John Fotopoulos, and Bruce Beck, eds., Studies in Orthodox Hermeneutics: A Festschrift in Honor of Theodore G. Stylianopoulos. Brookline: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2016. Romanides, John. “Critical Examination of the Application of Theology.” Procès-​verbaux du deuxième Congrès de Théologie orthodoxe, edited by Savas Agourides. Athens: Eptalophos, 1978: 413–​441. Stylianopoulos, Theodore G. The Apostolic Gospel. Brookline: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2015.

Toward an Orthodox Hermeneutic    321 Stylianopoulos, Theodore G. The Making of the New Testament. Brookline: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2014. Stylianopoulos, Theodore G. Encouraged by the Scriptures. Brookline: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2011. Stylianopoulos, Theodore G. “Holy Scripture, Interpretation, and Spiritual Cognition in St. Symeon the New Theologian.” Orthodox and Wesleyan Scriptural Understanding and Practice, edited by S. T. Kimbrough Jr. Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2005: 55–​7 1. Stylianopoulos, Theodore G. The Way of Christ: Gospel, Spiritual Life and Renewal in Orthodoxy. Brookline: Holy Cross Seminary Press, 2002. Stylianopoulos, Theodore G. The New Testament in Orthodox Perspective. Brookline: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1997. Stylianopoulos, Theodore G. Justin Martyr and the Mosaic Law. Missoula: SBL, 1975. Vaporis, Michael Nomikos. Translating the Scriptures into Modern Greek. Brookline: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1994. Vassiliadis, Petros. “Canon and Authority of Scripture: An Orthodox Hermeneutical Perspective.” Orthodox and Wesleyan Scriptural Understanding and Practice, edited by S. T. Kimbrough Jr. Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2005: 21–​35. Wiles, Maurice. The Spiritual Gospel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1960. Wright, N. T. Paul and the Faithfulness of God, Book II. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2013.

Chapter 20

Orthod ox Ch ri st ia ni t y, Patristic Exe g e si s , a nd Historical C ri t i c i sm of the Bi bl e John Fotopoulos Although there are accomplished Orthodox biblical scholars around the world using historical criticism for their study of Scripture, such use is not always without suspicion or adversity in the Orthodox Church. Rather, within the Orthodox Church, attempts to limit biblical interpretation to that of patristic exegesis have been expressed many times throughout Church history. For example, in AD 692 the Council in Trullo (a.k.a. Quinisext or Πενθέκτη) issued Canon 19, which asserts that the meaning of Scripture is to be taught only by presiding Church hierarchs (τοὺς τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν προεστῶτας) through the repetition of patristic exegesis, while such hierarchs are prohibited from engaging in biblical interpretations of their own.1 Not long after, probably beginning in the seventh and eighth centuries, the creation of homiliaria (a.k.a. panegyrika)—​collections of patristic homilies—​ were generated.2 These homiliaria were designed to replace biblical exegetical preaching

1  Canon 19 of the Council in Trullo reads: “Ὅτι δεῖ τοὺς τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν προεστῶτας, ἐν πάσῃ μὲν ἡμέρᾳ, ἐξαιρέτως δὲ ἐν ταῖς Κυριακαῖς, πάντα τὸν κλῆρον καὶ τὸν λαὸν ἐκδιδάσκειν τοὺς τῆς εὐσεβείας λόγους, ἐκ τῆς θείας γραφῆς ἀναλεγομένους τὰ τῆς ἀληθείας νοήματά τε, καὶ κρίματα, καὶ μὴ παρεκβαίνοντας τοὺς ἤδη τεθέντας ὅρους, ἢ τὴν ἐκ τῶν θεοφόρων Πατέρων παράδοσιν. Ἀλλὰ καὶ εἰ γραφικὸς ἀνακινηθείη λόγος, μὴ ἄλλως τοῦτον ἑρμηνευέτωσαν, ἢ ὡς ἂν οἱ τῆς ἐκκλησίας φωστῆρες, καὶ διδάσκαλοι, διὰ τῶν οἰκείων συγγραμμάτων παρέθεντο· καὶ μᾶλλον ἐν τούτοις εὐδοκιμείτωσαν, ἢ λόγους οἰκείους συντάττοντες· ἵνα μή, ἔστιν ὅτε, πρὸς τοῦτο ἀπόρως ἔχοντες, ἀποπίπτοιεν τοῦ προσήκοντος. Διὰ γὰρ τῆς τῶν προειρημένων Πατέρων διδασκαλίας, οἱ λαοὶ ἐν γνώσει γινόμενοι τῶν τε σπουδαίων καὶ αἱρετῶν, καὶ τῶν ἀσυμφόρων καὶ ἀποβλήτων, τὸν βίον μεταρρυθμίζουσι πρὸς τὸ βέλτιον, καὶ τῷ τῆς ἀγνοίας οὐχ ἁλίσκονται πάθει, ἀλλὰ προσέχοντες τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ, ἑαυτοὺς πρὸς τὸ μὴ κακῶς παθεῖν παραθήγουσι, καὶ φόβῳ τῶν ἐπηρτημένων τιμωριῶν τὴν σωτηρίαν ἑαυτοῖς ἐξεργάζονται.” 2  Albert Ehrhard, Überlieferung und Bestand der hagiographischen und homiletischen Literatur der griechischen Kirche, 3 vols. (Leipzig, 1937), 1:25–​35.

Orthodox Christianity, Patristic Exegesis, and Historical Criticism    323 by using patristic exegesis within the liturgical assembly. Such an approach that sought to replace biblical study and interpretation with pre-​established patristic exegesis of Scripture can help make intelligible the kind of thinking that deemed it acceptable in the twelfth century to erase an important Greek uncial manuscript of Scripture dating from the fifth century—​Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus—​in order to reuse those folia for thirty-​eight treatises of St. Ephrem the Syrian. In such case, the treatises of Ephrem the Syrian were deemed more significant than a codex of Scripture. An interesting irony may be noted here. Canon 68 of the Council in Trullo prohibits the erasure or destruction of Old or New Testament manuscripts to be reused as palimpsests, or for the purposes of booksellers, a practice that clearly did not cease after the issuance of this canon.3 In the wake of the Protestant Reformation and an emphasis on individual reading and study of Scripture, the Orthodox Church issued several official pronouncements against private biblical study. In 1672, the Synod of Jerusalem issued what is commonly known as the Confession of Dositheus as a rebuttal to various Calvinist positions. One particular issue that was raised in the Confession of Dositheus is directly relevant to the discussion of critical study of Scripture among Orthodox. The following appears in the form of a question and answer in the Confession of Dositheus: Question #1:  Should the Divine Scriptures be read commonly by all Christians? Response:  No. We know that all Scripture is divinely inspired and beneficial, and in this way has in it what is necessary, so that without it, it is impossible to be pious at all. Nevertheless, it should not be read by all, but only by those who with the proper investigation have inquired into the depths of the Spirit, and who know which ways the divine Scripture should to be investigated and taught, and generally read. But to those who are not trained and indifferent, or who understand only literally, or in any other way what is contained in the Scriptures that is foreign to piety, the catholic Church, knowing by experience the damage caused, does not permit its legitimate reading. It is permitted to every pious person to hear the Scripture so that that person may believe with the heart unto righteousness, and confess with the mouth unto salvation. But to read certain parts of Scripture, and especially the Old Testament, is prohibited for the aforementioned reasons and others similar to them. To order untrained persons not to read all of sacred Scripture is the same thing as restricting infants from touching solid food.4 This statement on the reading and interpretation of Scripture was repeated almost verbatim in 1723 in An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith by prominent bishops, among whom were Patriarch Jeremiah III of Constantinople, Patriarch Athanasius IV of Antioch, and Patriarch Chrysanthos of Jerusalem.5 These Church pronouncements prohibited the

3  Another

example of such a palimpsest is GA 094. This 6th century Gospel lectionary was later erased and reused as writing material for the Life and Martyrdom of St. Menas. 4 Δοσιθέου του Ιεροσολύμων, Ομολογία πίστεως (1672). Greek text found in Ιωάννη Καρμίρη, Δογματικά και Συμβολικά Μνημεία, 2 vols. (Athens and Graz, Austria, 1960–​1968), 2:848. 5  Τα του Ευσεβεστάτου Βασιλέως και των Αγιωτάτων Πατριαρχών Γράμματα. Περί της Συστάσεως της Αγιωτάτης Συνόδου, μετ’ εκθέσεως της Ορθοδόξου Πίστεως της Ανατολικής Καθολικής Εκκλησίας. Ἐρώτησις β. Ἀπόκρισις. (Question 2. Answer.). The Greek version commonly cited was published in

324   John Fotopoulos reading of Scripture generally by all Orthodox Christians, except “by those who with the proper investigation have inquired into the depths of the Spirit, and who know which ways the divine Scripture should to be investigated and taught, and generally read.” The Confession of Dositheus and the Exposition of 1723 also give special emphasis to Orthodox Christians being prohibited from reading “certain parts of Scripture, but especially the Old Testament.” These Church pronouncements assert that Orthodox Christians in general are permitted to hear the Scriptures in church where they are to “believe with the heart unto righteousness, and confess with the mouth unto salvation.” In their approach to Scripture, these Church pronouncements emphasize that it is essential for Orthodox Christians to hear, believe, and confess, but not to read Scripture. Moreover, nothing is said about the necessity of Orthodox Christians understanding the Scriptures. Indeed, in the response to Question #2 in the Confession of Dositheus as well as in the Exposition of 1723, it is asserted that only those “trained in wisdom and holiness” can understand the content of Scripture.6 Despite these restrictions, the desire for general reading of Scripture by Orthodox and the influence of historical criticism began to be felt slowly in Greece in the 1830s. There, the learned Orthodox Deacon Neophytos Vamvas advocated for an Old Testament translation that used the Masoretic Hebrew as its vorlage. This translation was sponsored by the British and Foreign Bible Society and gained public attention in Greece in 1834.7 Because this translation had been made from Hebrew into modern Greek, it sparked an especially sharp backlash from traditionalist Orthodox Christians. These traditionalist Orthodox Christians rejected any possible use of Hebrew instead of the Greek Septuagint, while they also denied the need for modern Greek translations of Scripture in general. In 1835, the Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church of Greece officially denounced any Old Testament translation done from Hebrew or any other language, rather than using the Septuagint. Such translations were declared to be “uncanonical and unacceptable by the Eastern Church.”8 Earlier, in 1822, similar sentiments against biblical translations into the common language of the people had been expressed by Metropolitan Matthew of Kyzikos, a member of the Holy Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. Metropolitan Matthew stated that the Scriptures should not be “indifferently offered to the vulgar and uneducated [people], unable to scientifically investigate God’s revelation without the guidance and faultless interpretation of the Fathers.”9 It was only after 1868, when Nicholas Damalas was appointed to the faculty at the University of Athens, that historical-​critical study of Scripture began

1844, but there is an earlier printed version from 1840. See the English text in the pamphlet translated by William C. King from the original Greek, titled, “Letters of the Most Pious King, and of the Most Holy Patriarchs, Concerning the Establishment of the Most Holy Synod; with an Exposition of the Orthodox Faith of the Eastern Catholic Church,” 87–​88 (cited April 12, 2014), https://​books.goo​gle.com/​books?id=​ lI0QA​AAAI​AAJ. 6 

Δοσιθέου του Ιεροσολύμων, (Καρμίρη) 2:849. Nomikos Michael Vaporis, Translating the Scriptures into Modern Greek (2nd edition; Brookline: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1994), 58. 8  Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church of Greece, Encyclical 28, April 2, 1835. Translated by Vaporis, Translating the Scriptures, 68. 9 Vaporis, Translating the Scriptures, 49. 7 

Orthodox Christianity, Patristic Exegesis, and Historical Criticism    325 to gain some traction independently of patristic exegesis among Orthodox biblical scholars in Greece. An early Orthodox biblical scholar in Russia to employ historical criticism in his study of Scripture was Archpriest Gerasim Pavskii. A gifted philologist and Hebraist, Pavskii used the Masoretic text to create his own new Russian translations of various Old Testament books,10 while Pavskii also produced a new translation of the Gospel of Matthew from Greek.11 Some scholarly positions on the Old Testament held by Pavskii were in agreement with the findings of critical biblical scholarship in the West. For example, Pavskii thought that some of the Psalms were not likely written by King David, an idea promoted by Pavskii as early as his dissertation in 1814. Pavskii also accepted the scholarly theory of Second Isaiah and held that there were two authors responsible for the Book of Zechariah.12 However, Pavskii’s Hebrew translation, lecture notes, and scholarly influence on Orthodox seminary students in Russia came under close scrutiny by the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church. Investigations and hearings into the matter occurred between 1842 and 1844 and during this time 305 of 308 of lithograph copies of Pavskii’s critical lecture notes on his Old Testament translations were burned by the Holy Synod.13 It was not until the 1860s and 1870s that the situation in Russia improved slightly more in favor of using critical tools for the translation and the study of Scripture. An early twentieth-​century achievement by Orthodox utilizing tools of textual criticism was the publication of a continuous Greek New Testament by the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. This text was intended for ecclesiastical use and was to be representative of the textual tradition of the Church of Constantinople. The project began in 1899 and was led by the gifted New Testament scholar Vasileios Antoniades. In total, one hundred sixteen Byzantine lectionaries dating from the ninth to sixteenth centuries were studied to produce the final text. The Greek New Testament that was published appeared in 1904, and it was reprinted in 1912 with a small number of corrections.14 This Greek New Testament, the so-​called Patriarchal Text, continues to be the Greek text primarily in use today among Greek-​speaking Orthodox Churches. Although the early and mid-​twentieth century saw an increase in Orthodox biblical scholars using historical criticism for their work, more emphasis was given to the value of patristic exegesis. In the 1930s, Fr. Georges Florovsky strongly advocated for theological renewal in the Orthodox Church with his call for a “return to the fathers.”15 The effects

10  Stephen

K. Batalden, “Gerasim Pavskii’s Clandestine Old Testament: The Politics of Nineteenth-​ Century Russian Biblical Translation,” Church History 57.4 (1988): 487. 11 Alexander I. Negrov, Biblical Interpretation in the Russian Orthodox Church: A Historical and Hermeneutical Perspective, BHT 130 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 87. 12 Negrov, Biblical Interpretation, 87. 13  Batalden, “Gerasim Pavskii’s Clandestine Old Testament,” 488. 14 Ioannis D. Karavidopoulos, “The Ecumenical Patriarchate’s 1904 New Testament Edition and Future Perspectives,” Sacra Scripta 10.1 (2012): 7–​14. 15 G. Florovsky, “Wesdiche Einflüsse in der russischen Theologie,” in Procès-​ Verbaux du Premier Congrès de Théologie Orthodoxe à Athènes, 29 novembre–​6 décembre 1936, ed. Ham. S. Alivisatos (Athens: Pyrsos, 1939), 212–​231. Georges Florovsky, “Patristic Theology and the Ethos of the Orthodox

326   John Fotopoulos of this return to the fathers on twentieth-​century Orthodoxy, whether consistent or not with Florovsky’s vision, have been especially pronounced in the area of biblical studies. Throughout the twentieth century, Orthodox theologians and clergy who sought insight into the meaning of biblical texts turned largely to Greek patristic homilies on the Bible and used such patristic exegesis for what is sometimes asserted to be the Orthodox interpretation of the Scriptures. It is quite interesting to note that Florovsky’s call for a “return to the fathers” expressed nothing about a return to the Scriptures. Whether intended or not by Florovsky, the consequence has been that for many Orthodox Christians, the church fathers somehow take the place of the Scriptures. Florovsky writes, “The Church is indeed ‘Apostolic.’ But the Church is also ‘Patristic.’ And only by being ‘Patristic’ is the Church continuously ‘Apostolic.’ ”16 Even in Florovsky’s influential essay titled “The Lost Scriptural Mind,” it is ironic that Florovsky does not say anything about the necessity of studying the Scriptures. Rather, Florovsky emphasizes that to acquire the “lost scriptural mind,” it is necessary to read the fathers and to preach the creeds.17 Statements from Orthodox clergy, theologians, and monastics regarding the fundamental importance of parroting the biblical exegesis of the fathers—without regard for the date, provenance, form, or context of the fathers’ exegesis could—be repeated here almost ad infinitum.18 Despite the emphasis given to patristic exegesis by Orthodox theologians, the use of historical criticism for biblical exegesis has been a slow but important trend among Orthodox biblical scholars in the Europe, Russia, the United States, the Middle East, and Australia during the past fifty years. It was from May 17 to 21, 1972, that The First Conference of Orthodox Hermeneutical Theology was held in Greece at the historic Monastery of Penteli. The purpose of this conference was to address the topic, “The Value of the Orthodox

Church,” in Aspects of Church History, ed. Richard S. Haugh; vol. 4 of The Collected Works of Georges Florovsky (Vaduz: Büchervertriebsanstalt, 1972–​1989), 22. Florovsky’s call for a return to the fathers beginning in the 1930s was also referred to by him and is well known as the “Neopatristic synthesis.” See Florovsky, “Patristic Theology,” in Collected Works, 4:22. 16 

Florovsky, “Patristic Theology,” in Collected Works, 4:16. Georges Florovsky, “The Lost Scriptural Mind,” in Bible, Church, Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox View, ed. Richard S. Haugh; vol. 1 of The Collected Works of Georges Florovsky (Vaduz: Büchervertriebsanstalt, 1972–​1989), 9–​16. 18  Rev. Dr. John Palmer, “Homily 1: The Importance of the Holy Fathers.” Accessed on March 27, 2017, at https://​sites.goo​gle.com/​site/​ocachu​rch/​homil​ies This is the first of a series of sermons given by an Orthodox priest in Canada who received his PhD at the University of Thessaloniki. Palmer states: “It means we must give priority to the words of the Holy Fathers over those who dabble in theology, over those who are really just philosophers, because the Fathers speak out of the deepest experience of union with God: no academic degree can rival this. Those of us who read and study theology must be very aware of this and not allow ourselves be overcome by the temptation to speculate on the basis of our own understanding. It means we give priority to their words when it comes to the interpretation of the scriptures, of the Bible, for which books would be included in the Bible was determined on the basis of whether or not they conformed to the common experience of Christ alive already in the consciousness of the Church. By acquiring the Grace of God, the Fathers have united themselves to this consciousness which is prior to the Bible itself and thus they understand it better than anyone possibly can, looking at it from the outside. It means that we give priority to their words when it comes to understanding the faith for it is they who, coming together in council, discussed their common experience and came to an agreement about how it was best put into words.” 17 

Orthodox Christianity, Patristic Exegesis, and Historical Criticism    327 Hermeneutical Tradition for Contemporary Research.” At the close of the conference, the participants drafted a statement on their deliberations. One of the relevant points of the statement (Point #2) reads: All participants recognized the great value and importance of the Patristic hermeneutical tradition, this exquisite spiritual heritage and deposit, for contemporary biblical research. The Patristic hermeneutical tradition constitutes an indispensable counsel and priceless guide to the correct interpretation of Holy Scripture.19

In light of what has already been sketched about the emphasis that Orthodox have given to patristic exegesis, it should come as no surprise that the Penteli conference participants would stress the value of the patristic tradition for Orthodox interpretation of the Bible. Nevertheless, those conference participants went on to make a further point regarding patristic biblical interpretation (Point #3) that has not been given the same kind of attention as their endorsement of the patristic tradition. Point #3 reads, “The Patristic hermeneutical tradition itself stimulates creative thinking and leads to the critical use of scientific methodology in the study of Scripture today.”20 Here the conference participants, many of whom were prominent Orthodox biblical scholars at the time from around the world, were advocating for more than repetition of the fathers, but for creative, rigorous biblical scholarship using the methods and tools of critical biblical study in the academy. While Orthodox biblical scholars have made great strides during the past fifty years in their use of historical criticism, strong critiques have been made against historical-​critical interpretation of the Scriptures by various scholars and theologians both outside and inside the Orthodox Church.21 Many of these critiques have tied historical criticism to methodological presuppositions stemming from the thought of Ernst Troeltsch in 1898. These methodological presuppositions have been summarized by John J. Collins in the three following principles: (1) The principle of criticism or methodological doubt: since any conclusion is subject to revision, historical inquiry can never attain absolute certainty but only relative degrees of probability. (2) The principle of analogy: historical knowledge is possible because all events are similar in principle. We must assume that the laws of nature in biblical times were the same as now. Troeltsch referred to this as “the almighty power of analogy.” (3) The principle of correlation: the phenomena of history are inter-​related and inter-​dependent and no event can be isolated from the sequence of historical cause and effect.22 19 “First

Conference of Orthodox Hermeneutical Theology: May 17–​ 21, 1972,” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 17.2 (1972): 305. 20  “First Conference,” 305. 21  See, e.g., Walter Wink, The Bible in Human Transformation: Toward a New Paradigm for Biblical Study (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1973), 1–​10, where historical criticism of the Bible is referred to as “bankrupt” and a method that reduces the Bible to a “dead letter.” Inside the Orthodox Church, Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev of the Patriarchate of Moscow, frequently disparages positions held by critical New Testament scholars. In his book Jesus Christ: His Life and Teaching, vol. 1: The Beginning of the Gospel (Yonkers, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2018), Alfeyev refers to positions of critical New Testament exegetes as scholarly “myths” (64, 71–​76), “fairy tales” (78), and “hypotheses that have become dogma” (77). 22  John J. Collins, “Is a Critical Biblical Theology Possible?,” in The Hebrew Bible and Its Interpreters, ed. William Propp, Baruch Halpern, David N. Freedman, Biblical and Judaic Studies 1 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 2.

328   John Fotopoulos Collins goes on to add one more principle of his own, that of autonomy, which Collins states “is indispensable for any critical study. Neither church nor state can prescribe for the scholar which conclusions should be reached.”23 From an Orthodox Christian perspective, certainly the Troeltschian principles #1 and #3 could be acceptable among Orthodox biblical scholars if they are understood in a general way. However, (1) the principle of criticism or methodological doubt can be applied in historical-​critical biblical scholarship as a kind of hostility toward Scripture. This presupposition may assume that nothing in the Scripture is to be trusted or believed, that no event recorded is certain, and that everything is to be doubted—​an approach that is highly problematic for Orthodox biblical scholars. As for (3) the principle of correlation, numerous Orthodox Christians would likely affirm that in many cases the phenomena of history are interrelated and interdependent, and thus worthy of historical investigation. However, this principle of correlation has been used by some biblical scholars to convey that God does not act in history and that humans are left with, at best, a God who is completely apathetic to the plight of our world, or, at worst, no God at all. Regarding (2) the principle of analogy, Orthodox biblical scholars might give qualified agreement that historical knowledge is possible because events are similar in principle, and the laws of nature in biblical times were the same as they are now. Despite such qualified agreement with this principle, the great majority (if not all) Orthodox biblical scholars would reject the impossibility of the miraculous, or that God’s power is not able to transcend so-​called laws of nature, or that a supernatural, singular event like the resurrection of Jesus is impossible. In general, it seems safe to say that Orthodox biblical scholars using historical criticism regard an absolute naturalist ontology to be objectionable. Finally, Collins’s principle of autonomy could be understood in a positive way in that the findings of most Orthodox biblical scholars are not usually predetermined by anyone or by any institution, but this principle of autonomy might also be viewed as problematic for some Orthodox biblical scholars because the independence of the individual is asserted to be of almost “sacred” importance. On the other hand, many Orthodox scholars have given overemphasis to the idea that biblical interpretation is only done properly within the Orthodox Church. For example, Veselin Kesich declares that “to an Orthodox student of the Bible, the Scripture is not a field in itself, it is not ‘intelligible in itself,’ but its meaning is revealed within its context, that is, within the life of the Church.”24 So, too, a prominent archimandrite of the Orthodox Church of Greece writes, “Consequently, our Orthodox Christian Church is the criterion for the understanding of Holy Scripture and holy Tradition. An interpretation done outside the Church travels on paths of error.”25 Such an emphasis on biblical interpretation being done only within the Orthodox Church (however that might

23 

Collins, “Critical,” 2. Kesich, “The Orthodox Church and Biblical Interpretation,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 37.4 (1993): 349. 25  Archimandrite Ch. P., “Υπακοή στο νόμο του Θεού,” Φωνή Κυρίου (June 10, 2007): 1. In Greek, Archimandrite Ch. P. writes, “Η Ορθόδοξη Χριστιανική Εκκλησία μας είναι συνεπώς κριτήριο για την κατανόηση της Αγίας Γραφής και της ιερής Παράδοσης. Μια ερμηνεία εκτώς Εκκλησίας κινείται σε δρομούς πλάνης.” See also, e.g., Mary Ford, “Seeing But Not Believing: Crisis and Context in Biblical Studies,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 35.2–​3 (1991): 111–​112. 24 Veselin

Orthodox Christianity, Patristic Exegesis, and Historical Criticism    329 be defined) can limit the movement of the Spirit of God, while also sometimes leading to bland, circular, repetitious, biblical interpretation that can lack creativity, insight, and relevance. Certainly a normative environment of intellectual freedom must exist within the Orthodox Church for Orthodox biblical scholars to pursue their scholarly work in good conscience and without the Church predetermining the findings of such scholarship a priori. To be sure, this kind of intellectual freedom is already the norm within the Orthodox Church, without restrictions being placed on the work of Orthodox biblical scholars living under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. To my knowledge, there is nothing in the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople akin to the Roman Catholic Church’s censor deputatus who works in conjunction with a local bishop, nor is there anything like a nihil obstat or an imprimatur. However, in the Orthodox Patriarchate of Moscow, the situation is more restrictive. Stamps of approval for Orthodox religious publications must first be issued by the Publishing Council of the Russian Orthodox Church before publications can be distributed or used within the Russia Orthodox Church. Writings addressing more complex issues in biblical studies by Orthodox scholars are sent to the Russian Orthodox Church’s Synodal Biblical and Theological Commission for approval, revision, or rejection.26 Although Orthodox biblical scholars under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople (and many other Orthodox Church jurisdictions) do not have to be concerned about submitting their writings for an Orthodox nihil obstat or an imprimatur before such publications can be used in Orthodox education, or sold in Orthodox parishes, or used by Orthodox Christians for worship as is required for Roman Catholics biblical scholars27 or as is the situation in the Patriarchate of Moscow, Orthodox biblical scholars using historical criticism have a responsibility to pursue their scholarship in good conscience, striving to pursue their work as members and representatives of the Orthodox Church. However, this should not imply that the findings or exegesis of Orthodox biblical scholars should be predetermined, or that Orthodox biblical scholars should anachronistically inject later Orthodox dogmatic positions into the writings of the New Testament when seeking the Scripture’s literal sense. Here it might be noted that the Orthodox Church has not yet issued an official statement on par with the Vatican’s Dei Verbum that officially endorses the use of historical criticism by Orthodox biblical scholars in the search for the scriptural writings’ literal sense. The way forward for Orthodox biblical scholars is precisely the manner in which the overwhelming majority of such scholars have been doing their work. This means that Orthodox biblical scholars continue to use historical criticism, using the best scholarly methods of

26 

For information on the issuance of stamps of approval by the Russian Orthodox Church regarding publications that are less theologically technical, see http://​www.patr​iarc​hia.ru/​db/​text/​5458​919.html. For stamps of approval regarding writings requiring more technical approval in the area of biblical studies, see http://​www.patr​iarc​hia.ru/​db/​text/​65975.html. 27  See the Roman Catholic Code of Canon Law #827.2 for the necessity of having an imprimatur to use publications within Roman Catholic education at any educational level; Code of Canon Law #827.4 on the necessity of having an imprimatur for the sale of works at Roman Catholic parishes or oratories; and Code of Canon Law #826, #827.1 on the necessity of having an imprimatur for publications used by Roman Catholics in catechism and in private or public prayer (including translations).

330   John Fotopoulos biblical interpretation in their searching of the Scriptures, while also honoring the exegetical work of the church fathers in all its diversity. A great deal of work being done by Orthodox biblical scholars who are using historical criticism seems to be focused primarily on pursuing the meaning of biblical texts within their respective historical contexts. To be sure, there is no such thing as an uncontextualized scriptural writing. Although the search for the literal sense of Scripture may be the primary focus of many Orthodox biblical scholars—​and here clarity is especially warranted—​this certainly does not imply that the literal sense is the only viable way that a biblical text can be understood. Indeed, it is important to remember that “meaning” itself is polyvalent, and not necessarily something singular and abstract. This applies, of course, even to the contextual meaning of a biblical text within its original historical and cultural Sitz im Leben. Although interpretation of the scriptural writings is not restricted to their original context, the search for the literal sense of Scripture should serve, at a minimum, as a kind of marker for other kinds of biblical interpretation, even when those interpretations go beyond or away from the literal sense. There is an acknowledgment among Orthodox Christians that the biblical writings constitute the Word of God, also constituting a part of the canon of Scripture,28 and thus the Scriptures have been subjected to centuries of recontextualization in light of the pastoral and theological needs of the Orthodox Church in a variety of locations. Such recontextualizations permit a recognition as to why various church fathers found it acceptable to interpret biblical texts differently than one another, and why Orthodox biblical scholars today may find it to be acceptable to interpret various biblical texts differently than the fathers. Rather than demanding particular exegetical outcomes from Orthodox biblical scholars, that is, some predetermined, so-​called Orthodox interpretation for particular texts of Scripture, or even insisting on one particular method of biblical interpretation, since it is clear that the Fathers used a variety of exegetical methods, it would be more consistent for Orthodox biblical scholars using historical criticism to conduct their exegesis within a flexible yet Orthodox interpretative framework. In this way, what Anthony Thiselton has referred to as the reader’s “horizon of expectation” may be of use as a springboard for further reflection regarding the work of Orthodox biblical scholars. Thiselton states that a reader’s horizon of expectation includes: a network of provisional working assumptions which are open to revision and change; second, the reader or interpreter may not be conscious of all that the horizon of expectation sets in motion, makes possible, or excludes. The expectations and assumptions concern the kind of questions and issues which we anticipate the text will address, and even the types of genre or mode of communication which it might use. For once, the over-​worked phrase about the need to “ask the right questions” genuinely comes into its own and has its place. The fact that

28  The

precise contents of the Old Testament canon are not yet a settled matter in the Orthodox Church. There is a consensus among the communion of Orthodox Churches that the writings of the shorter canon of the Old Testament (thirty-​nine books) constitute Scripture. That which is still in question is the precise canonical status of the ἀναγιγνωσκόμενα and the various writings included among them. From the meeting of the Fourth Pan-​Orthodox Conference at Chambésy in 1968, the topic of the ἀναγιγνωσκόμενα was slated for the agenda of the future Pan-​Orthodox Holy and Great Council, as was the planning of a critical edition of the Byzantine text of the New Testament. Unfortunately, in later preconciliar meetings these topics were not pursued further and ultimately they were not discussed at the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church that convened at Crete in 2016.

Orthodox Christianity, Patristic Exegesis, and Historical Criticism    331 a horizon is by definition both a limitation and yet also capable of movement and expansion as the subject of perception moves focuses the dual element of the strange and the familiar in processes of seeking to understand texts.29

Thiselton seems to be trying to establish a normative interpretive framework for understanding Scripture that is also flexible enough to grow or change. The reader’s horizon of expectation, as Thiselton describes it, could be adapted by Orthodox biblical scholars using historical criticism—​that is, an interpretative framework respecting the entire history of salvation that also takes seriously the incarnational context of scriptural writings. Thiselton has argued for the terms “horizon of expectation” over that of “presuppositions,” which he says, “conveys the impression of rooted beliefs and doctrines which are not only cognitive and conceptual, but which also can only be changed and revised with pain, or at least with difficulty. Neither element is necessary in ‘horizon.’ ”30 The way that Thiselton has described “presuppositions” sounds very much like the starting point for biblical interpretation that is common enough among some Orthodox Christians today—​a kind of rigid, pietistic, judgmental, triumphalistic, anti-​ecumenical Orthodox biblical hermeneutic. To be sure, some Orthodox Christians see some biblical texts through the lens of particular Orthodox beliefs or practices to the extent that the search for the contextual meaning of these biblical texts—​their literal sense—​is completely ignored. For example, in the Orthodox Church the apostolic reading on the Sunday of Meatfare is taken from 1 Cor 8:8–​13, 9:1–​2. This text is commonly interpreted by Orthodox Christians as though it is concerned with the Orthodox Christian devotional practice of fasting (“Therefore, if food causes my brother or sister to fall, then I will not eat meat again, so that I may not cause my brother or sister to fall,” 1 Cor 8:13).31 However, this text for the Sunday of Meatfare does not address the practice of Christian fasting (nor does any of 1 Cor 8:1–​11:1), but rather the Corinthian Christians’ consumption of food that had been offered to pagan deities in Roman Corinth. In this case, not only is the horizon of expectation that a reader/​interpreter brings to Scripture important, but so too is the horizon of the biblical text. Thiselton offers an important reminder: the “meaning of biblical texts can be transformed . . . when a serious mis-​match of horizons occurs.”32 It is of fundamental significance for Orthodox biblical scholars using historical criticism that the scriptural writings are not completely divorced from the times, places, authors, recipients, and cultures that produced them. Certainly other interpretative

29  Anthony Thiselton, New Horizons in Hermeneutics: The Theory and Practice of Transforming Biblical Reading (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992), 44. 30 Thiselton, New Horizons, 45. 31  In less than twenty seconds, a Google search discovered such an Orthodox interpretation regarding 1 Cor 8:8-​–1​ 3, 9:1–​2 as being about fasting. In a sermon titled, “Fasting from Sin” for Cheesefare Sunday, an Orthodox priest discusses fasting on Cheesefare and Meatfare Sundays, stating, “The Scripture readings reinforce the theme of fasting from food. The Saturday before Meatfare Sunday, 28But if anyone says to you, ‘This was offered to idols,’ do not eat it for the sake of the one who told you, and for conscience’ (sic) sake; for the earth is the LORD’S, and all its fullness.’ (1Cor.10:28). Last Sunday on Meatfare, 13Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble. (1Cor. 8:13).” The bold type and the italics in this quotation have been reproduced just as they appear in the text of the sermon. See http://​stge​orge​goc.org/​past​ors-​cor​ner/​fr-​ricks-​serm​ons/​fast​ing-​from-​sin. 32 Thiselton, New Horizons, 46.

332   John Fotopoulos approaches and methods beyond historical criticism are important, useful, and necessary (such as literary, patristic/​theological, feminist, liberation, etc.) and those approaches and methods are able to bear fruit for the understanding of Scripture.33 However, if as a general matter Orthodox exegetes ignore the historical contextualization of scriptural writings, it is possible for Orthodox to approach the Scriptures as a kind of contemporary biblical docetists, giving lip service to the historical “appearance” the Scriptures, while really emphasizing the Scriptures divine spirit divorced from their historical contextualization. The general limitation and overreliance on patristic exegesis as the only appropriate biblical interpretation within the Orthodox Church has caused the Scriptures to become largely domesticated to the extent that direct study of the Scriptures is rarely done among Orthodox Christians today—​whether by laity or clergy—​since studying the Scripture may simply be replaced with quoting the fathers. The result is that when biblical interpretation is done in liturgical preaching or in church publications, patristic exegesis from another era and place is repeated and is oftentimes not directly relevant to the pastoral, theological, or socioeconomic challenges faced by Orthodox faithful today. This may be one major reason why in general the Orthodox Church today is better prepared to fight theological heresies from the fourth and fifth centuries than it is to search the Scriptures, allowing the Scriptures to inform, enlighten, comfort, challenge, and transform Orthodox Christians and the world in which we live. In the pursuit of the literal sense of Scripture, Orthodox use of historical criticism does not have to be singular or forced, nor do Orthodox Christian beliefs need to be sacrificed. Rather, the Orthodox pursuit of the meanings of biblical texts within their particular historical contextualizations can allow Orthodox to more closely approach Scripture’s normative polyvalent meaning, thereby better pursuing Scripture’s polyvalent recontextualization in the life of Orthodox Christians today.

Bibliography Aland, Kurt, and Barbara Aland. The Text of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1989. Alfeyev, Hilarion. Jesus Christ: His Life and Teaching, Vol. 1, The Beginning of the Gospel. Yonkers, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2018. Batalden, Stephen K. “Gerasim Pavskii’s Clandestine Old Testament: The Politics of Nineteenth-​C entury Russian Biblical Translation.” Church History 57.4 (1988): 486–​498. Collins, John J. “Is a Critical Biblical Theology Possible?” Pages 1–​18 in The Hebrew Bible and Its Interpreters, edited by William Propp, Baruch Halpern, David Noel Freedman. Biblical and Judaic Studies 1. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990. Δοσιθέου του Ιεροσολύμων, Ομολογία πίστεως (1672). Page 848 in Δογματικά και Συμβολικά Μνημεία, edited by Ιωάννη Καρμίρη. 2 vols. Athens and Graz, Austria, 1960–​1968. Ehrhard, Albert. Überlieferung und Bestand der hagiographischen und homiletischen Literatur der griechischen Kirche. 3 vols. Leipzig, 1937.

33  The theological interpretation of the Scriptures makes room for a contemporary appropriation of patristic biblical exegesis. However, a return to a precritical approach to the Scriptures or simply repetition of the Fathers does not seem viable in light of our contemporary situation.

Orthodox Christianity, Patristic Exegesis, and Historical Criticism    333 Τα του Ευσεβεστάτου Βασιλέως και των Αγιωτάτων Πατριαρχών Γράμματα. Περί της Συστάσεως της Αγιωτάτης Συνόδου, μετ’ εκθέσεως της Ορθοδόξου Πίστεως της Ανατολικής Καθολικής Εκκλησίας. Ἐρώτησις β. Ἀπόκρισις. “First Conference of Orthodox Hermeneutical Theology: May 17–​21, 1972.” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 17.2 (1972): 305–​306. Florovsky, Georges. “Wesdiche Einflüsse in der russischen Theologie.” Pages 212–​231 in Procès-​ Verbaux du Premier Congrès de Théologie Orthodoxe à Athènes, 29 novembre–​6 décembre 1936, edited by Ham. S. Alivisatos. Athens: Pyrsos, 1939. Florovsky, Georges. “Patristic Theology and the Ethos of the Orthodox Church.” Pages 11–​30 in Aspects of Church History, edited by Richard S. Haugh; vol. 4 of The Collected Works of Georges Florovsky. Vaduz: Büchervertriebsanstalt, 1972–​1989. Florovsky, Georges. “The Lost Scriptural Mind.” Pages 9–​16 in Bible, Church, Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox View, edited by Richard S. Haugh; vol. 1 of The Collected Works of Georges Florovsky. Vaduz: Büchervertriebsanstalt, 1972–​1989. Ford, Mary. “Seeing But Not Believing: Crisis and Context in Biblical Studies.” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 35.2-​3 (1991): 107–​125. Karavidopoulos, Ioannis D. “The Ecumenical Patriarchate’s 1904 New Testament Edition and Future Perspectives.” Sacra Scripta 10.1 (2012): 7–​14. Kesich, Veselin. “The Orthodox Church and Biblical Interpretation.” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 37.4 (1993): 343–​351. Negrov, Alexander I. Biblical Interpretation in the Russian Orthodox Church: A Historical and Hermeneutical Perspective. BHT 130. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. P., Ch., Archimandrite. “Υπακοή στο νόμο του Θεού.” Φωνή Κυρίου (June 10, 2007): 1. Thiselton, Anthony. New Horizons in Hermeneutics: The Theory and Practice of Transforming Biblical Reading. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992. Vaporis, Nomikos Michael. Translating the Scriptures into Modern Greek. 2nd edition; Brookline: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1994. Wink, Walter. The Bible in Human Transformation: Toward a New Paradigm for Biblical Study. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1973.

Chapter 21

T he Modern Se a rc h for the Litera l Se nse Forerunners of the Challenge at Antioch Christopher R. Seitz Introduction Antiochene biblical interpretation (AI) has been held to be a precursor of historical-​critical reading in the modern period. Bultmann wrote his first thesis on the recently discovered documents from this region/​school, precisely for this reason.1 Also, AI has been regarded as a keen foe of allegorical reading, such as emerged from the rival school of Alexandria with its luminaries Philo and Origen and their students. So, it holds the potential for helping sharpen our eye on biblical hermeneutics in the present period (which has its own species of aversion to allegory). It will be our view that the obviousness of a contrast with allegorical reading is true enough, but that one needs to understand the literal sense instincts of AI on its own terms. There are some similarities with modern historical reading, but a great many differences as well. One also needs to bracket out premature dogmatic conclusions and engage with the peculiarities of AI in its own right (that is surely in the spirit of modern historical reading). We engage the modern study of these two schools and hold that alongside new insights in secondary sources there are also some misunderstandings of the literary-​historical reflexes in AI. Understanding these helps put the modern and late-​modern trends in biblical studies in better perspective. Because this treatment is located in a volume on Orthodoxy, I believe it is important to stay close to that terrain. From that vantage point we can better think through what appeal to the literal sense means in our day. Because the Old Testament (OT) exists within a specific historical context, attention has been given to bringing that “pastness” into greater focus, since the eighteenth century. While this has been held to be one of the great contributions

1  Rudolph

Bultmann, Die Exegese des Theodore von Mopsuestia, ed. Helmut Feld and Karl Shelke (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1984).

The Modern Search for the Literal Sense    335 of the Reformation’s insistence on the literal sense, vis-​à-​vis the medieval Quadriga, it is obvious that a great deal of space has opened up between that era’s concerns and what goes for historical-​critical reading in the ensuing centuries. What we will see in the concerns of AI is a kindred attention for proper historical appraisal. But because AI is a species of Christian interpretation in which the OT is heard and applied in a second witness, that dimension remains critical to account for. That is, AI wrestles with the reality of secondary recycling as a first-​order affair and not something to be given over to “New Testament scholars” in the manner of most modern handling. Though their treatment at this level has been held to be anemic or even sub-​Christian, we hope to show that, even in its provisionality, it demonstrates just what a challenge it is to coordinate the literal sense and extended sense-​making, in the light of a two testament biblical witness.

Is There a “School” of Antioch? One challenge, given space limitations, is the idea of a uniform school of Antiochene exegesis. This would misrepresent a genealogy of biblical interpretation popularly depicted as running from Diodore of Tarsus, through his students Theodore and John Chrysostom, to Theodoret of Cyrus. We know, for example, that Theodoret is frequently critical of what appears to be the precise exegesis of Theodore. A classic case is the interpretation of Micah 4:1–​5. We will turn to this example later, as it is critical for indicating an ability to regulate exegesis inside the Antiochene family on theological grounds. So for our purposes, to speak of Antiochene exegesis can at most serve as a shorthand for a family resemblance within several generations of biblical commentary.2 This family resemblance allows certain observations to be made, but it also cautions against stating the matter without proper nuance. It has long been noted that allegorical exegesis can be quite literal, and depending on the section of scripture being interpreted, practical and moralistic.3 So too, forms of higher meaning (theoria) in AI can resemble in certain ways the spiritual reading in allegorical commentary.4 This means that defining Antiochene exegesis as merely opposed to allegorical excesses—​for whatever reasons given, and even when this

2  See use of the term in Brevard S. Childs, The Struggle to Understand Isaiah as Christian Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004). 3  A good overview remains, Brevard S. Childs, “The Sensus Literalis of Scripture: An Ancient and Modern Problem,” in Beiträge zur alttestamentlichen Theologie: Festschrift für Walther Zimmerli zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. Herbert Donner et al. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1977), 80–​93, and Brevard S. Childs, “Allegory and Typology within Biblical Interpretation,” in The Bible as Christian Scripture: The Work of Brevard S. Childs, ed. Christopher R. Seitz and Kent Harold Richards (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2013), 299–​311. 4  A very thorough survey can be found in Bradley Nassif, “‘Spiritual Exegesis’ in the School of Antioch,” in New Perspectives on Historical Theology: Essays in Memory of John Meyendorff, ed. Bradley Nassif (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 343–​377. See also my “Psalm 2 in the Entry Hall of the Psalter: Extended Sense in the History of Interpretation,” in Church, Society, and the Christian Common Good: Essays in Conversation with Philip Turner, ed. Ephraim Radner (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2017), 95–​106.

336   Christopher R. Seitz opposition is articulated in clear ways, as Theodore can do—​is not a sufficient or comprehensive way to understand features of both so-​called schools of interpretation. There is doubtless much in the idea that certain differences in approach are to do with educational principles and how texts were meant to be handled, given the schooling and training in each respective interpretative context. Schaublein and Young have emphasized this, and this dimension has also been referenced in an essay by John O’Keefe, and in the translations prepared by Robert Hill.5 But of course one is never merely their alma mater. The challenge of the peculiar subject matter and the specific form of Christian Scripture (two testaments, with the first being referred to in the second) means the analogy with secular literature is broken in part if not entirely. On a related tack, O’Keefe has been concerned to point to specific theological limitations in the school of Antioch, so as not to let other issues confuse the matter, including the limitations of a curriculum or training. By this O’Keefe does not mean that Theodore’s exegesis should not be followed because of his later condemnation, associated with Nestorianism. This would obviously be a case of explicit censure of theological limitation or distortion.6 At issue is not the success with which one can spot Nestorian tendencies in his exegesis, or even more, Christological statements he makes which speak of two natures. For O’Keefe, the dogmatic aspect would render disproportionate his real concern, that is, that the interpretative practices of the Antiochenes as a whole are attenuated or misshapen, thus justifying later condemnations (and the destruction of their works). In some ways the issue must be posed this way for O’Keefe because only Theodore is finally condemned for heresy, and yet he wishes to speak in broad terms of the propriety of finding fault with the exegesis of an entire school. His failure to deal with Chrysostom is only one place where the ambition of his argument may create obvious problems. He also acknowledges at places that Theodoret may well distance himself from the exegesis of his forebears, but appears to believe this does not handicap his evaluation. We will need to return to this issue. One further preliminary matter requires comment. At points in recent times it had become popular to see in Antiochene exegesis a kind of foreshadowing of historical-​critical exegesis. From what has been said thus far, one can see how necessary it is to avoid making too-​broad generalizations: If it is unclear that one can speak of more than family resemblances in Antiochene exegesis, the same is true in many respects of speaking of “historical-​critical exegesis” as a uniform phenomenon. Obviously the search for facts behind the biblical record; or notions of multiple authorship, sources, editors, “situations-​ in-​life,” the forms of prophetic discourse, three Isaiahs; or the recourse to a landscape of referentiality somehow independent of the biblical account—​these priorities of historical

5 Christoph Schäublin, Untersuchungen zu Methode und Herkunft der Antiochenischen Exegese, Theophaneia 23 (Köln: Peter Hanstein, 1974); Frances M. Young, Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997); Frances M. Young, “The Rhetorical Schools and Their Influence on Patristic Exegesis,” in The Making of Orthodoxy: Essays in Honour of Henry Chadwick, ed. Rowan Williams (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 182–​ 199; John O’Keefe, “‘A Letter That Killeth’: Toward a Reassessment of Antiochene Exegesis, or Diodore, Theodore, and Theodoret on the Psalms,” JECS 8 (2000): 83–​104. The commentaries, with introductory remarks by Robert C. Hill, are cited in what follows where relevant. 6 Useful for this context of concern is John Behr, ed., trans., The Case against Diodore and Theodore: Texts and Their Contexts (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2011).

The Modern Search for the Literal Sense    337 criticism are wide to the mark of that species of historia prized by this ancient interpretative school. This form of ancient historia exists within a fully “uneclipsed” biblical narrative, of the type Frei referred to in his 1974 work and which enabled figural reading and allegory both to flourish in the Christian interpretative tradition up to and including the reformers, on his account.7 History for the school of Antioch is indeed a crucial term of reference, but it exists within the literal world of cross-​reference available only in the final form of the Bible. In this sense, it resembles in form and content the historical scene-​setting one can see in Calvin’s exegesis, though it can take odd forms in the case of the Psalter, especially in Theodore’s hands. Theodore likes to find episodes in the history of Israel in which to place the psalms of David, even to the degree of disputing the scene-​setting the Psalter itself provides when it provides this, in the form of superscriptions. But here one cannot find a precursor of form-​ criticism, which also removed the world of reference stipulated by a superscription, so as to imagine the psalms in cultic and history-​of-​religions contexts. The history at question was located in the books of Kings and in stories found there.8 Parenthetically, this dimension in Diodore and Theodore is fascinating in its own right.9 Especially Theodore, even when he is replicating the conclusions of his teacher, speaks like something of a modern interpreter armed with set conclusions and facts (if that is the way to put it). He asserts situations-​in-​life for the psalms with complete, insouciant confidence. David speaks of affairs in the Babylonian exile, in the days of the Maccabees, in near-​terms, in the life of Saul, and in kindred episodes provided by Kings and Chronicles. A special favorite is Hezekiah. One has little sense of strong argument or Auseinandersetzung with a prior tradition here. Theodore is applying a method, most likely from his school training, and resolutely deploying it from psalm to psalm. Only one Psalm is interpreted without any such scene-​setting. To be sure he can get exercised on occasion in disputing an alternative (Jewish or Christian), but in most instances he states his findings as if they are self-​evident, or will prove to be when he puts his pen down. I stay with the issue at this juncture because it helps focus the kinds of questions O’Keefe is bringing to the evaluation. O’Keefe also knows that the “history” prized by AI is not that of modern historical-​criticism, but in the end his objections about the earlier work are theological ones, on his terms, and they could equally be directed at almost all species of modern historical critical work. O’Keefe believes that something he calls “vertical figuration” (Auerbach) is the warrant for the classification of exegesis appropriately Christian as “theological.” Christian exegesis, for it to be worthy of the name, must relate the Psalms to matters of Christ, the church, and redemption. It does this not by plotting the psalms and their historia on a line of horizontal figuration which in time leads to Christ, nor even when Antiochene exegetes claim the OT author is prophesying Jesus Christ. On his terms this still falls short of genuinely Christian reading. For O’Keefe the literal sense of the psalms appears to require a steady and inherent Christological referent, and the commentary needs to draw that out and position it front

7 Hans

W. Frei, The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative: A Study in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Hermeneutics (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974). 8  Robert C. Hill, trans., Theodore of Mopsuestia: Commentary on Psalms 1–​81 (Leiden: Brill, 2006). 9  Robert C. Hill, trans., Diodore of Tarsus: Commentary on Psalms 1–​51 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2005).

338   Christopher R. Seitz and center. At this juncture my point is only that Antiochene commentary on the Psalms, given the evaluation of properly theological/​ Christian exegesis provided by O’Keefe, does actually look a lot like modern “historical-​critical” accounts, if one refrains from comparing their understanding of history and instead makes a theological appraisal of the kind O’Keefe prioritizes. Modern commentary on the Psalms focuses on historical context and intentionality in a mode of past delivery and of past sense-​making, and if it seeks to speak Christianly, it does this by some form of analogy, or by means of a tradition-​historical unfolding. Indeed, some commentary of a Christian kind even resembles allegory, though this may both be an ironic effect of historical overdetermination seeking some vestige of applicative sense (as well as a poorly executed, inconsistent, or erratic allegorical application measured against what has gone by this term in classical commentary). But here the allegorical or applicative sense usually comes as secondary or tertiary commentary, and does not inhere with the explication of the literal sense in the matter of earlier commentary, as for example in Augustine or Aquinas. A minor thesis of the present chapter is that one can identify limitations in the exegesis of Antioch, and that such limitation can be of a theological nature. But this limitation belongs, in our judgment, to an overdeployment of historical specification. This is something quite different to arguing that Antiochene exegesis is to be dismissed on doctrinal grounds. (In some ways all exegesis of the period has an experimental and provisional feel to it, seen from a later doctrinal perspective.) It is further our position that specifically Christian reading is precisely what the Antiochenes can be charged with attempting, and that it is successful as a theological reading. There is nothing inherently “heretical” or untheological or unchristian about the exegesis of Diodore, Theodore, Chrysostom, or Theodoret. Rather, they have an understanding of Christian exegesis that prefers an economic unfolding from Old to New Covenants, prophecy and fulfillment, and only limited forms of typological reading. They are also able to make specifically higher Christian reflections, in the form of theoria. This usually takes the form of seeking to understand prophecy and fulfillment, and the way the second testament claims to be in accordance with the first.

Prophecy, Theoria, and Antiochene Biblical Theology We begin this section with the distinctions O’Keefe uses to describe Antiochene exegesis and with these to argue such interpretation “did a kind of violence to Christian reading.”10

10  Here

is a sample of judgments O’Keefe registers: “Antiochene exegesis did a kind of violence to Christian reading” (84); “they destroy the coherence of the Psalms as a Christian text” (85); and “the interpretations do not appear to be overtly Christian” (85). “they failed to grasp both the significance and the necessity of Christian figurative and theological reading of the Old Testament. In a way, as Leontius implies, their interpretations became ‘a letter that killeth’ ” (85); “the reader is hard pressed to find anything particularly Christian in their biblical commentaries” (96); “they went too far and wound up severing key links between the Old and New Testaments” (104).

The Modern Search for the Literal Sense    339 O’Keefe registers a distinction between “vertical figuration” and what he sees as temporal and causal connection on the historical plane. Auerbach himself used the term “figuration” and spoke of events linked across time, “vertically linked to divine Providence” and O’Keefe cites him approvingly and for support in his evaluation (95). Auerbach also distinguished this manner of figuration (and its appeal to providential correlation across time) from classic historiography. Our cavil with O’Keefe is that AI cannot be described adequately through the lens of this conceptual dichotomy (pagan historiography here, vertical figuration there). So, for example, Antiochene exegesis has no problem breaking out of causal connections in the horizontal dimension. David can speak of events genuinely miraculously, based on a notion of a prophetic endowment given only to Israel’s inspired seers, as Theodore has it. This means he can see events much later in the history of Israel, in the days of Hezekiah, Babylonian exile, or the Maccabean period. There is nothing about this that belongs to classic historiography of a generic cultural sort, in the rhetorical schools (so Schäublin). And this same endowment allows Theodore and Diodore to argue, against Jewish interpretations to which they refer negatively, that David sees Christ and speaks of his day (as they hold David does in Psalms 2, 8, 45). At issue is also not merely the degree or quantity of material from the psalms that Diodore and Theodore allow David to see of Christ. That would confuse the issue. To be sure, in the Psalms where David speaks of Christ, this is because the New Testament (NT) offers a confirmation (Zaharopoulos sees this dimension as more sober). But this is in no way a limiting factor if one is trying to understand OT prophecy as such. Moreover, the fact that in Psalm 45 the inspired David refers to Christ when there is no NT fulfillment or reference to this, indicates that other principles are at work. Our main thesis can now be stated. The thing that makes comparison with classical historiography run aground is the character of Christian Scripture, a character which is handled differently by allegorists and Antiochenes, but which in both schools leads to a specifically Christian reading. In Antioch the total character of the twofold witness is properly grasped through the reality of prophecy, whereby figures in the first testament speak of things beyond their own day, and which the second testament indicates have been fulfilled in Christ. This is not a grid of continuous, causally linked events, as might be implied by reference to classic historiography. Because Christian Scripture has two testaments and not a continuous tradition-​history, but stops and then starts again in a new mode of accordance and fulfillment, it cannot be compared to rhetorical school conceptions. This fact is everywhere on view in Antiochene reading. Moreover, the fuller understandings of type and antitype, while reserved in Diodore and Theodore, are in evidence in Theodoret. Diodore and Theodore prefer single sense meanings, but this does not prohibit them from seeing prophecy moving from the first testament to a NT fulfillment.11 The allegorical alternative is not necessarily a ramped-​up figural universe, focusing on temporal connections that are providentially overseen. Rather, the totality of scripture as a twofold witness is asserted by means of higher senses in the moral and spiritual plane. To say that this is a more Christian form of scriptural interpretation is to simply miss the

11  See my essay cited earlier in note 2, and also the discussion of Auerbach in my recent works, The Elder Testament: Canon, Theology, Trinity (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2018), 70, 79–​84, and Convergences: Canon and Catholicity (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2020), 36.

340   Christopher R. Seitz proper means of differentiating these two exegetical conceptions. In Auerbach’s model, what is at issue is a mode of double reference across time, whereby a relationship is asserted which is vertically endorsed providentially. The prophecy-​fulfillment concern of Antioch can be plotted within this conception. What needs further investigation is the character of theoria in AI, and how prophecy-​fulfillment provides a base for extending this dimension of figuration; and where it can also constrain this. But to say with O’Keefe that Antiochene interpretation is sub-​Christian is to fail to understand how its model of reading is deeply biblical, is tuned to the economic character of a two-​testament scripture, and is confident that tota scriptura is best guarded in a distinctly Christian way when the literal sense is firmly at the center. On this understanding, theoria remains fully a category of providential ordering that can be witnessed in “the way the words go.” The alternative is not more Christian, but is differently attuned to the full scopus of a two-​testament scriptural testimony by means of moral and spiritual pedagogy.

Challenges As stated, what needs further investigation is the ability of prophecy and fulfillment to extend itself to typology and secondary reference. Two ways of considering this matter can be distinguished. On the one hand, it can be argued that the Old Testament prophet consciously has two things in view (David speaks of his own kingdom; David speaks of Christ). A subset of this has David speak of his own kingdom, but know that the language he utters exposes the transitory character of his reign, and in this sense is a “prophecy” of a future kingdom. Both of these understandings point to a theoria, or more complex spiritual insight: one based upon hyberbolic excess and the prophet’s knowledge of its capacity for extension. The second is based on the prophet’s consciously having two references in his mind at the same time. An alternative understanding focuses not so much on human agency in the Old Dispensation at the level of inspired meaning and intentionality. Rather, David speaks of things whose import is grasped later. At issue on this understanding is the continuous and consistent character of the later understanding with what the OT figure said, as the letters go. David speaks truly of things as God will in time show them to be, making his words prophetic even as they are sensibly grasped in their own day and meaningfully intended. Here the insight into a greater referentiality entails the theoria of the NT writer. It is on this last point that AI meets its greatest challenge. Theodore is reluctant to speak of double senses in general because he worries that this tends to fracture the letter of the first witness. In one species to which he refers, interpretation takes turns, letting the letters speak here of Christ and there of Solomon (so Ps 45); here of Zerubbabel and there of Christ (Zechariah 3). That offends against a principle of clarity and human consistency (as Theodore sees it), even in a highly inspired figure under God’s hand, like David or the prophet Zechariah.12 A second problem for Theodore arises when it comes to NT use of the OT. It is important for him to be able to distinguish between kinds of forward speech from

12  Compare here Theodore (Robert C. Hill, trans., Theodore of Mopsuestia: Commentary on the Twelve Prophets, FC 108 [Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2003]) and Didymus (Robert

The Modern Search for the Literal Sense    341 the OT, and so to differentiate between what the NT does with the OT. If the OT passage used in the NT contains language that Theodore believes cannot properly be applied to Christ (failings/​sins in Psalm 22), then David cannot be referring to Christ. In such a case, then, the use of Psalm 22 in the NT is the consequence of a similarity of circumstance (David’s suffering and Christ’s suffering) and so of a proper use after the fact of an OT text: Christ uses Psalm 22 applicatively, and not as prophecy in a predictive sense, referring to him by an inspired David. For Theodore, given his understanding, Psalm 22 cannot be prophecy in the strict sense, because he is tied to a conception of sense that tracks closely the letters of the OT and the appropriateness of them being extended directly to Christ, given what the NT tells us about him. But a correspondence exists all the same, and Christ’s use of the OT is explicable on these terms. This is as far as Theodore likes to go with double reference, and it is probably the thinnest form of figuration because it does not have to do with sense intention, but with subsequent correlation. This means that interpretation of Psalm 22 ought to avoid letting the subsequent usage drive the interpretation.

Conclusions First, it is proper to keep the description and evaluation of Antiochene exegesis distinct from discussions of Christology and dogmatic controversy. This is especially true of matters related to a proper assessment of theoria and the interpretation of the Old Testament, which need to be carefully studied on their own merits. We do not have all the material necessary to assess the doctrinal debate, given the enormous output of Theodore of Mopsuestia, and the percentage of that available for study. This makes it difficult to draw clear lines of connection between exegetical methodology in the Antiochene school and doctrinal formulations. The two-​subject Christology of Antiochene formulation may have more to do with neoplatonic presuppositions about the character of God and especially divine impassability than exegetical methods per se (we leave aside the politics of the matter as this unfolded after Theodore’s death).13 So, for example, in Psalm 2, where Theodore distinguishes the “man assumed” from the divine Word, he seems to be matching a collection of biblical texts with a notion he has already brought from his dogmatic storehouse. This involves linkages between Psalm 2, Psalm 8, and associations or quotations of them in Hebrews, Acts, and Matthew, thus urging Theodore to a view that “today I have begotten you” can only apply to the incarnate Man and not the eternal word. Neither Diodore nor Theodoret move in this direction because they do not acknowledge as significant the same, rather curious, assemblage of diverse biblical references.14 Theodoret speaks only of eternal kingship via a link to Psalm 45, a Psalm the Antiochenes all agree is messianic. Diodore simply refers “today” to the

C. Hill, trans., Didymus: Commentary on Zechariah, FC 111; Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2006]). 13 

See Behr’s thorough study cited earlier. Diodore of Tarsus; Robert C. Hill, trans., Theodoret of Cyrus: Commentary on the Psalms, 2 vols., FC 101–​102 (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2000–​2001). 14 Hill,

342   Christopher R. Seitz divine clock, and so an indication of eternity. These simpler ways of handling the matter will find their counterpart in later exegesis of Psalm 2 as well. In sum, it is proper to keep the issue of exegesis and hermeneutics within its own frame of reference and not allow doctrinal controversy to inhibit focused attention on the biblical interpretation of Antioch. The Antiochenes are struggling with the proper way to relate the testaments and especially direct associations made by the NT of the OT. Second, in Micah 4, one sees the Antiochenes struggling with how to keep historia, prophecy, and NT reference in proper balance. Theodore believes the NT (specifically Jesus’s comments on proper worship in John) disallows Micah’s prophecy in 4:1–​5 reaching beyond the events of Israel’s own history. Theodoret, by contrast, sees Micah’s prophecy as too hyperbolic to refer only to events in Israel’s own day, and not specifically to Christ and the Gospel’s extension (even when the NT does not cite Micah 4 in the manner of formula citation). The law going forth to Israel and the nations is what he calls “the evangelical law and apostolic preaching.” He sees the failure of this text to transpire in the history of Israel as a sign it refers to something greater, and he chastises the Jews and also Theodore (though not by name) for faulty interpretation. The remainder of Micah ­chapter 4 indicates that Zion is in for stormy days ahead and ongoing national assault. The point here is that Theodore finds faulty a reading of Micah if the appeal to type overreaches, or fails to match, the NT’s plain sense (as he sees it). Theodoret disagrees that a match is not to be found. But his reading is not, strictly speaking, typological, for he believes Micah 4:1–​5 is a prophecy with a single referent. Micah prophesies the going forth of the law and the true fulfillment of that takes place in the events of Jesus Christ and the Church. Allegorical interpretation for the most part seeks extended meaning not through a discussion of what the inspired speaker saw beyond his own day, or in his own day and for another day as well, but by reflecting on spiritual senses conveyed by the biblical story taken as a whole. Third, Antiochene exegesis is not historical-​critical exegesis. That point has been properly registered. But to the degree that Antiochene exegesis struggles with history, prophecy, and a two-​testament canon—​where the second uses the first in a wide variety of ways—​its struggles have remained familiar ones. What may be said is that AI foregrounds the character of prophecy and the use of the OT in the NT, and endeavors to think through human intention, the possibility of extended senses, and providential overseeing of fulfillments in time. AI takes seriously the complexity of Vetus Testamentum in Novo Receptum, for its own sake as a material reality, and because this is where doctrinal implications arise. Because the use of the OT in the NT, and the OT’s pointing beyond itself, raise the question of the relationship of the God of Israel to NT claims about Jesus, doctrinal clarification is necessary in the nature of the case. How is God at work in two distinct dispensations, and yet as the same God? Because historical-​criticism has complicated matters related to human authors, and so human intentions, by having recourse to a highly differentiated world of sources, inherited religious forms and traditions, editors, and final redactors, it has obscured the reality foregrounded in Anthiochene appeal to historia. The Antiochene historia has become (given the transition from Reformation/​Humanist concern for the literal sense to eighteenth-​and nineteenth-​century interpretation) a hugely complicated religious history to which the Bible refers when one reads it as evidentiary clues for the reconstruction of this external world, now called “historical.” In the older frame of

The Modern Search for the Literal Sense    343 reference, the human author has remained in clearer focus because fused with the final form of the text. Canonical readings, which accept the complex diachronic development of a book like Micah, but seek to comprehend a larger coherent intention in the final form, are able to reattach the theological concerns of (1) prophecy and fulfillment, (2) a nuanced understanding of literal sense and figural potential, and (3) the doctrinal implications of two-​testament accordance to what was of concern in the older Antiochene readings. And what was of primary concern in the older Antiochene universe of historia and providence may again prove illuminating, as these same theological dimensions call out for interpretation in our own day.15 This “calling out” has become more obvious or more urgent, in part because the huge scaffolding of history-​of-​religions reading began to overshadow the art of interpretation in something of the manner of allegorical or multiple sense readings. The fact of that great irony, however, takes us beyond the bounds of this chapter. Finally, there is an enormous output today in NT studies focusing on the use of the OT in the NT. When properly reconstructed, the OT is said to provide the essential historical timeline and worldview from which to plot the intentions of Jesus. For N. T. Wright, this is something like “biblical theology” at the bottom line, and also the purpose of the OT as such.16 Or, Paul’s use of the OT is subject to sympathetic analysis so as to understand its variety and its penetrating theological insight; and the church finds in this combination of pneumatological freedom and creativity a model for its own use of the OT today.17 Francis Watson has further sought to defend Paul’s use of the OT on the grounds that it has seen the OT’s real sense, even when obscured within that same first witness, or especially by historical-​critical readings that fail to grasp the canonical sense.18 The danger in these studies is that the NT hearing of the OT becomes normative for Christian theology (and of necessity through a reconstruction)19 thus displacing both

15  See the concluding remarks in Christopher R. Seitz, “The Presentation of History in the Book of Isaiah,” in The History of Isaiah: The Making of the Book and Its Presentation of the Past, ed. Todd Hibbard and Jake Stromberg, FAT I (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2021), 145–​158. 16  Among other publications, see N. T. Wright, “The Servant and Jesus: The Relevance of the Colloquy for the Current Quest for Jesus,” in Jesus and the Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 and Christian Origins, ed. William H. Bellinger Jr. and William R. Farmer (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1998), 281–​ 297. Toward the end of the essay he avers that “story, symbol, and praxis” are the key categories for gaining access to “Jesus’ mind and worldview,” and that these categories illuminate how Jesus’s own self-​ understanding and intentions were shaped by Isaiah 52:7 and the idea that he was providing an “end” to Israel’s story and vocation (i.e., return from exile). 17  Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989). See more recently, Richard B. Hays, “Can the Gospels Teach Us How to Read the Old Testament?,” ProEccl 11 (2002): 402–​418. The question might better be phrased: Can the OT teach us about the person and work of Jesus Christ, who is the subject matter of OT and NT both? At issue is not the use of the OT in the NT, as historically reconstructed to extract hermeneutical models, but the proper appraisal of the subject matter of both testaments, each as Christian Scripture. See the evaluation of Brevard S. Childs, The Church’s Guide for Reading Paul (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 32–​42. This is an idea shared by the Antiochenes and Aquinas both, in spite of their differences. See what follows. 18  Francis Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2004). 19  “If Mark had Job 9 in mind, it would help explain . . .” is a representative statement of this kind of thinking (Hays, “Can the Gospels Teach Us,” 409).

344   Christopher R. Seitz what the earlier tradition understood as the discrete theological witness of the OT as a Christian testimony, or the genuinely forward potential of the literal sense as an extension of it.20 Hays sees the sense of Psalm 69 revealed in a special way by virtue of the work of Christ, and he speaks of the “original sense” needing to be honored.21 Yet one struggles to see wherein the genuine extension and continuity exists. The “meaning” of Psalm 69 is given by a Christological endowment, rather than arising as inherently part of the literal sense. Antiochene exegesis of the OT reminds us that Vetus Testamentum per se and Vetus Testamentum in Novo Receptum reflect a genuine conversation between two testaments, providentially overseen, from which arises a theologically truthful statement about the character of the God of Israel revealed in Jesus Christ. The theological contribution of the scriptures of Israel lies in its unique testimony to the One God, and not what the NT authors do with it, as reconstructed by NT scholars in the modern period. It is this stable scriptural inheritance that allows us, in turn, to appreciate what the NT means when it speaks of accordance and also how Christian Scripture as a whole speaks of and witnesses to God in Christ.22 This chapter has implications for modern historical reading and how the character of extended sense-​making in the Old Testament has to be addressed, given the reality of a two-​testament Christian canon. The Antiochenes do not let this dimension fall out, but they do not like double-​referencing in the manner of Didymus. Modern historical reading tends to hand the challenge of relating the OT and the NT over to NT scholarship, in spite of ambitious projects like von Rad’s tradition-​building model.23 The problem here is that NT interest in the use of the OT in the NT fails adequately to appreciate the role of the OT per se as Christian Scripture, beyond this functional recycling. It views figuration as a retrospective reality, and not one inherently at work in the disclosure of God to Israel. Our investigation of AI provides an example of the challenges facing every age. Aquinas was wary of Theodore’s reading of Psalm 22. For him the “literal sense” was the “spiritual sense.” Aquinas did not erase the witness of God to Israel via the plain sense of Psalm 22, but he insisted that the literal sense must not be confined to the past only, but must be available for extended sense making as well. Aquinas and AI both knew there was a challenge to be faced in the relationship between the literal sense and its extensional potential. This challenge is perennial and it remains with us today. 20 See the trenchant analysis of Don C. Collett, “Reading Forward: The Old Testament and Retrospective Stance,” ProEccl 24 (2015): 178–​196. And Don C. Collett, Figural Reading and the Old Testament: Theology and Practice (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2020). 21  Hays, “Can the Gospels Teach Us,” 414. “Such retrospective reading neither denies nor invalidates the meaning that the OT text might have had in its original historical setting” (emphasis mine). Here one can see the modern assumption of a meaning distant in time that one must assume had a referent now obscure to us. The relationship between the literal sense and extended sense-​making is more organic than that. It is a prospective sense. 22  See Seitz, Elder Testament. 23  For a fuller discussion on the limitations of the tradition-​historical model for biblical theology, see my “Two Testaments and the Failure of One Tradition-​History,” in Figured Out: Typology and Providence in Christian Scripture (Louisville: Westminster John Know, 2001), 35–​48.

The Modern Search for the Literal Sense    345

Bibliography Behr, John, ed., trans. The Case against Diodore and Theodore: Texts and Their Contexts. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. Bultmann, Rudolph. Die Exegese des Theodore von Mopsuestia. Edited by Helmut Feld and Karl Shelke. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1984. Childs, Brevard S. “The Sensus Literalis of Scripture: An Ancient and Modern Problem.” Pages 80–​93 in Beiträge zur alttestamentlichen Theologie: Festschrift für Walther Zimmerli zum 70. Geburtstag. Edited by Herbert Donner, Robert Hanhart, and Rudolph Smend. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1977. Childs, Brevard S. The Struggle to Understand Isaiah as Christian Scripture. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. Childs, Brevard S. The Church’s Guide for Reading Paul. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. Childs, Brevard S. “Allegory and Typology within Biblical Interpretation.” Pages 299–​311 in The Bible as Christian Scripture: The Work of Brevard S. Childs. Edited by Christopher R. Seitz and Kent Harold Richards. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2013. Collett, Don C. “Reading Forward: The Old Testament and Retrospective Stance.” ProEccl 24 (2015): 178–​196. Collett, Don C. Figural Reading and the Old Testament: Theology and Practice. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2020. Frei, Hans W. The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative: A Study in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Hermeneutics. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974. Hays, Richard B. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989. Hays, Richard B. “Can the Gospels Teach Us How to Read the Old Testament.” ProEccl 11 (2002): 402–​418. Hill, Robert C., trans. Didymus. Commentary on Zechariah. FC 111. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2006. Hill, Robert C., trans. Theodoret of Cyrus: Commentary on the Psalms, 2 vols. FC 101–​102. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2000–​2001. Hill, Robert C., trans. Theodore of Mopsuestia: Commentary on the Twelve Prophets. FC 108. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2003. Hill, Robert C., trans. Diodore of Tarsus: Commentary on Psalms 1–​51. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2005. Hill, Robert C., trans. Theodore of Mopsuestia: Commentary on Psalms 1–​81. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Nassif, Bradley. “‘Spiritual Exegesis’ in the School of Antioch.” Pages 343–​ 377 in New Perspectives on Historical Theology: Essays in Memory of John Meyendorff. Edited by Bradley Nassif. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. O’Keefe, John. “‘A Letter that Killeth’: Toward a Reassessment of Antiochene Exegesis, or Diodore, Theodore, and Theodoret on the Psalms.” JECS 8 (2000): 83–​104. Schäublin, Christoph. Untersuchungen zu Methode und Herkunft der Antiochenischen Exegese. Theophaneia 23. Köln: Peter Hanstein, 1974. Seitz, Christopher R. “Two Testaments and the Failure of One Tradition-​History.” Pages 35–​48 in Figured Out: Typology and Providence in Christian Scripture. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001. Seitz, Christopher R. “Psalm 2 in the Entry Hall of the Psalter: Extended Sense in the History of Interpretation.” Pages 95–​106 in Church, Society, and the Christian Common Good: Essays in Conversation with Philip Turner. Edited by Ephraim Radner. Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2017.

346   Christopher R. Seitz Seitz, Christopher R. The Elder Testament: Canon, Theology, Trinity. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2018. Seitz, Christopher R. Convergences: Canon and Catholicity. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2020. Seitz, Christopher R. “The Presentation of History in the Book of Isaiah.” In The History of Isaiah: The Making of the Book and Its Presentation of the Past. Edited by Todd Hibbard and Jake Stromberg. FAT I. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2021. Watson, Francis. Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2004. Wright, N. T. “The Servant and Jesus: The Relevance of the Colloquy for the Current Quest for Jesus.” Pages 281–​297 in Jesus and the Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 and Christian Origins. Edited by William H. Bellinger Jr. and William R. Farmer. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1998. Young, Frances M. “The Rhetorical Schools and their Influence on Patristic Exegesis.” Pages 182–​199 in The Making of Orthodoxy: Essays in Honour of Henry Chadwick. Edited by Rowan Williams. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Young, Frances M. Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997.

Chapter 22

Antio chene The oria and the Theol o g i c a l Interpretat i on of Scrip tu re Bradley Nassif Brevard Childs, a pioneer in the Yale school of canonical interpretation, observed that the Antiochene’s understanding of theoria is potentially significant for contemporary biblical theology: “The crucial term around which the debate has revolved is the term θεωρíα [theoria], the spiritual hermeneutic at whose center lies the dual concern for both the historical and a Christological reading of the Bible.”1 Unfortunately, Childs died before he could develop the implications of theoria for the theological interpretation of Scripture. A “theological interpretation of Scripture” is a discipline commonly defined as the exposition of the Bible according to theological principles which Christians have considered to be inherent to Scripture. The patristic era is particularly important due to its being the common heritage of all Christian communities, but especially because of its lasting influence on the Eastern Orthodox Church. Although it is a relatively new discipline in academia, it has been the standard operating procedure in Orthodox Christianity for two millennia. Sustained critical reflection on the subject, however, has been largely absent among contemporary Orthodox theologians. Exegetically speaking, the School of Antioch consists of Diodore of Tarsus (ca. 330–​ 394) and the generation of his students, Theodore of Mopsuestia (ca. 350–​428), John Chrysostom (ca. 347–​407), and Theodoret of Cyrrhus (ca. 393–​458). Whether it is proper to call them a “school” of interpreters is debated, but I will do so here because they share a family resemblance of exegetical procedures. The term “theoria” has been fairly well

1 Brevard Childs, The Struggle to Understand Isaiah as Christian Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans: 2004), 130. See B. Nassif “‘Spiritual Exegesis’ in the School of Antioch,” in New Perspectives on Historical Theology: Essays in Memory of John Meyendorff, ed. Bradley Nassif (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 343–​377, which provides a detailed overview of the subject and the interpretive debates surrounding it.

348   Bradley Nassif understood in the Alexandrian context, but that has not been the case in the Antiochene setting. The history of scholarship on Antiochene theoria has shown the term to be elusive, if not altogether confusing for biblical and patristic scholars alike. Even John O’Keefe, and the many excellent publications of Frances Young, seem to have completely overlooked the scholarship on Antiochene theoria, resulting in an incomplete understanding of how the hermeneutic actually functioned in the Antiochene School. This present chapter, therefore, attempts to bring clarity to this elusive term by organizing its various usages into distinct categories that include a selection of primary source materials which illustrate the different ways in which theoria functioned in the School of Antioch, and to extrapolate from those sources their relevance for the Church’s theological interpretation of Scripture. Even though the selection of primary sources is small and merely representative, they are important for readers to have before them because they illustrate definitive traits of theoria as well as the Antiochenes’ commitment to biblical inspiration, history, typology, authorial intent, the literal sense, homiletics and divine providence in salvation history—​subjects addressed throughout the chapter.

Messianic Exegesis and the Literal Sense of Theoria In what will now become the standard work on Antiochene theoria, Richard J. Perhai offers the most thorough analysis of the hermeneutic and its use in Theodore and Theodoret.2 One of the several hermeneutical functions of theoria among the Antiochene writers was its possible use as a “method” of messianic exegesis. The term, however, may not have been used as a “method” at all, but simply a means of discerning certain features of messianic prophecy. In this prophetic context, theoria discerns a “double-​fulfillment” type of prophecy in which a biblical writer saw and recorded a present historical and future messianic message through one and the same prophecy by using hyperbolic language. Julian of Eclanum’s (ca. 380–​455) commentary on the minor prophets provides a rare definition of theoria: “Theoria, however, as the erudite are pleased to understand it, is for the most part a considered perception of either brief forms or causes of those things which are of greater importance” (“Theoria est autem (ut eruditis placuit) in brevibus plerumque aut formis aut causis earum rerum quae potiores sunt considerata perceptio” [PL 21:971B]). Julian’s definition may have come from Theodore of Mopsuestia, with whom Julian lived during his exile from Italy. Julian interprets Paul’s use of Hosea 1:10 in Romans 9:26: and, “In the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ there they will be called ‘children of the living God.’ ”

2  Richard

J. Perhai, Antiochene Theoria in the Writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia and Theodoret of Cyrus (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2015), c­ hapters 5–​6. “My study builds on the foundation of Bradley Nassif ’s dissertation, which among other concerns, addresses theoria primarily in the writings of John Chrysostom,” 33–​34.

Antiochene Theoria and the Theological Interpretation of Scripture    349 St. Paul declares that the joy allowed by those words will be fulfilled in the time of the gospel. . . . By this Paul does not want to negate . . . the prophecy that also promises the release from the Babylonian captivity; but the apostle wants to show us which rule we must follow in the interpretation of the prophetic books. It is this: When we hear the prophets speaking about the Jews and something is promised that goes beyond the small circle of people, yet we see it partly fulfilled in that nation, we know from theoria (per theoriam) that the promise is given for all people. . . . It will not be appropriate to say that the recall from the Babylonian captivity is predicted according to history and the liberty given by Christ according to allegory. No. The prophet predicted both things together at one time, jointly, in order that the mediocrity of the first fulfillment would predict the abundance of the second [emphasis mine]. . . . So what Hosea was saying about Babylonian times, Paul attributes to the facts of the Savior.3

In his Preface to the Psalms, Diodore of Tarsus (ca. 330–​390) likewise explains the manner in which the prophets sometimes verbalized their messianic prophecies: “In predicting future events, the prophets adapted their words both to the time in which they were speaking and to later times. Their words sounded hyperbolic in their contemporary setting but were entirely fitting and consistent at the time when the prophecies were fulfilled.”4 Thus, we may safely conclude that for Julian and Diodore, a biblical prophet could at times record an oracle that applied to a prophet’s present historical circumstances as well as to the future messianic age. Both fulfillments were delivered through one literal and hyperbolic mode of expression which, together, becomes the direct object of theoria. The texts cited here do not represent the most common application of theoria in Antiochene exegesis. Their principles, however, are relevant to contemporary discussions in canon criticism and the nature of messianic prophecy. Admittedly, modern quests for the final shape of the Pentateuch, its compositional history and redactional analysis were not on the agenda of the ancient School of Antioch. Yet, as the French Jesuit Paul Ternant observed, the goals and principles of Antiochene theoria may be developed in similar ways.5 He extrapolates from theoria the principle that a biblical redactor could at times repurpose a historical text for use as a messianic prophecy by focusing on the history, authorial intent, and compositional characteristics of certain prophecies in the Old Testament (OT). Theoria seeks to discover whether selected narratives of Israel’s history were read as a guide not only to the past but, more importantly, to the future as well. As will be seen in the next section, some have described this kind of canonical reading as typological, but that does not seem to do full justice to the history of the canonical process. Canonical reading today is not a return to precritical reading, but modern scholars may wish to fruitfully retain and perfect the methodological intuitions and assumptions of Antiochene theoria in their attempt to account for the unity of the Testaments and the original intentions of the authors and compilers of the biblical text. A modern example of a sophisticated use of Antiochene principles can be seen in the canonical theology of John Sailhammer.6 3  PL 21:871B translated from Alberto Vaccari, “La ‘teoria’ nella scuola esegetical di antiochia,” Biblica 1 (1920), 20–​22 in Nassif, “ ‘Spiritual Exegesis’ in the School of Antioch,” 351. 4  Karlfried Froehlich, Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), 91. 5 Portions of Ternant’s articles are translated in Nassif, “Spiritual Exegesis in the School of Antioch,” 355–​356. For the relation of theoria to the sensus plenior debates, especially in Raymond Brown, see 372–​373. 6 John H. Sailhamer, “A Proposal for a Canonical Theology,” in Introduction to Old Testament Theology: A Canonical Approach (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 197–​252.

350   Bradley Nassif Regarding the nature of double-​prophecy in the School of Antioch, patristic and biblical scholars over the past century have collectively identified four criteria (in piecemeal fashion) for discerning the existence of a single prophecy with double or even multiple fulfillments: 1. The use of hyperbolic traits in the language of the biblical prophet. 2. An explicit recognition of a double prophecy by a later New Testament (NT) writer in his interpretation of the OT, such as Hosea 1:10 in Romans 9:26 or Joel 2:28 in Acts 2:17.7 3. The redactional use of an existing text for a messianic purpose in the compositional history of a biblical narrative, e.g., the Chronicler’s use of 2 Samuel 7 in 1 Chronicles 17, where the author functions as both prophet and historian by intentionally predicting the coming Messiah through the person of Solomon. “If after a serious literary study of an OT text one should establish a messianic and eschatological perspective that had been superimposed by an inspired author onto an originally nonmessianic text, and those historical and messianic meanings had been consciously intended in the mind of a later redactor who expressed them under one formula, then one is obliged to interpret the text kata theorian.”8 4. The presence of theological and grammatical features which indicate that a single prophecy was intended to have multiple fulfillments and not simply double fulfillments (as Julian and Diodore thought). These features might include the presence of collective singular nouns in the Hebrew text or the frequent shift in prophetic passages between singular and plural pronouns or pronominal suffixes, as in Psalm 72. This fourth criteria is the most recent. It recognizes that the Antiochenes were not as attentive to the hermeneutical nuances of the biblical text as OT scholars are today.9 Kaiser is the most persuasive advocate of the Antiochene approach, though with little direct interaction with original patristic sources. Some who have rejected the validity of multiple fulfillments do not believe this method is able to account for the wide range of hermeneutics that are found in the NT’s use of the OT, while others do not recognize apostolic hermeneutics as normative for today. The viability and development of these criteria are left to the judgment of individual scholars. 7 

Criteria 1 and 2 are by Vaccari in Nassif, “ ‘Spiritual’ Exegesis in the School of Antioch,” 352. Ternant, 382 emphasis his. 9  Kaiser explains: “It is from this same Antiochene stance that I propose to interpret the historical and messianic meaning of Psalm 72. Without using the term theoria, Willis J. Beecher proposed a very similar approach to interpreting such nuances in Scripture. Beecher did not use the term theoria, but spoke of a ‘generic interpretation’ of messianic prophecy. Beecher described it this way: A generic prediction is one which regards an event as occurring in a series of parts, separated by intervals, and expresses itself in language that may apply indifferently to the nearest part, or to the remoter parts, or to the whole—​ in other words, a prediction which, in applying to the whole of a complex event also applies to . . . its parts. The only major difference between Beecher’s definition and that of the Antiochenes is that Beecher allows for ‘multiple fulfillments’ (rather than the Antiochene ‘double fulfillment’ . . . ).” Walter Kaiser Jr., “Psalm 72: An Historical and Messianic Current Example of Antiochene Hermeneutical Theoria,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 52, no. 2 (June 2009): 258; Walter Kaiser Jr., The Uses of the Old Testament in the New (Chicago: Moody, 1985). 8 Ibid.,

Antiochene Theoria and the Theological Interpretation of Scripture    351

Allegory, Typology, and Figurative Theoria A different use of theoria in the Antiochene School can be observed by answering two questions: (1) How did the Antiochenes’ understanding of allegory and typology differ from that of theoria? (2) In what ways did Antiochene writers apply theoria to other figurative readings of Scripture? Regarding the first question, the distinction between “literal” and “spiritual” readings of Scripture was a distinction between grammatical readings, governed by the ordinary procedures for making sense of texts in Greco-​Roman culture, and figural readings that went beyond this and employed allegory, typology, and other figurations in order to explore a text’s fuller Christological or ecclesiological meaning. It is well known that the Antiochenes attacked Alexandrian allegory for its dehistoricizing, platonizing, arbitrary, and elitist treatment of the biblical text. It is unnecessary for our purposes to examine the validity of their perceptions concerning what Alexandrian allegory entailed. What is hermeneutically important to learn is the Antiochenes’ own understanding of allegory and how it differed, in their minds (not ours), from theoria. Selected passages will explain in their own words how the Antiochenes viewed allegory, beginning with John Chrysostom. Chrysostom employed the Greek terms allegoria and anagoge as synonymous with theoria. Commenting on Isaiah 5:2–​6:1 he disavows an allegorical interpretation of Christ and the Church and sees the Isaiah passage as an extended metaphor about God’s faithfulness to Judah as he follows the principle of “Scripture interpreting Scripture”: “We are not lords over the rules of interpretation, but must pursue Scripture’s interpretation of itself. . . . This is everywhere a rule in Scripture: When it wants to allegorize, it tells the interpretation of the allegory so that the passage will not be interpreted superficially.”10 This principle is applied to Paul’s exegesis of Galatians 4:24–​ 26, which Chrysostom sees as a typological form of theoria that mediates a twofold sense of the text: the word-​sense (historia) and the thing-​sense (typos) as represented through the Sarah–​Hagar typology. “Contrary to usage, he [Paul] calls a type an allegory,” says Chrysostom. Even the names “Hagar” and “Sarah” are typologically significant by virtue of their literal sense: “the bondwoman is called Hagar, and ‘Hagar’ is the word for Mount Sinai in the language of that country . . . for that mountain where the Old Covenant was delivered has a name in common with the bondwoman.” The interpretation comes from theoria, which enables the interpreter to discern the interior unity of the Testaments, see typological correspondences between Hagar and Sarah and understand the spiritual significance of the etymology of their names—​all of which belong to the so-​called allegory in Galatians 4. In a Prologue to the Psalter, and the Preface to Psalm 118 (LXX), Diodore of Tarsus contrasts theoria with allegory while explaining the hermeneutical principles by which he interprets Scripture. The following quote is lengthy, but worth reading because it is

10  Translated from Jean Dumortier, ed., Jean Chrysostome, Commentaire sur Isaïe, Sources Chrétiennes 304 (Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1983).

352   Bradley Nassif one of the clearest statements we have on the difference between theoria and allegory in Antiochene literature. In the Preface to Psalm 118 we read: In any approach to holy Scripture, the literal reading of the text requires some truths while the discovery of other truths requires the application of theoria. Now, given the vast difference between historia and theoria, allegory and figuration (tropologia) or parable (parabole), the interpreter must classify and determine each figurative expression with care and precision so that the reader can see what is history and what is theoria, and draw his conclusions accordingly. Above all, one must keep in mind one point which I have stated very clearly in my prologue to the psalter: Holy Scripture knows the term “allegory” but not its application. Even the blessed Paul uses the term: “This is said by way of allegory, for they are two covenants” [Gal. 4:25]. But his use of the word and his application is different from that of the Greeks. The Greeks speak of allegory when something is understood in one way but said in another . . . let me give an example: Zeus called Hera his sister and his wife. The plain text implies that Zeus had intercourse with his sister Hera so that the same person is both his wife and his sister. This is what the letter suggests; but the Greeks allegorize it to mean that, when ether, a fiery element, mingles with air, it produces a certain mixture which influences events on earth. . . . Holy Scripture does not speak of allegory in this way. In what way then does it speak? Let me explain briefly. Scripture does not repudiate in any way the underlying prior history but “theorizes,” that is, it develops a higher vision (theoria) of other but similar events in addition, without abrogating history. . . . With the historical account as his firm foundation, he develops his theoria on top of it; he understands the underlying facts as events on a higher level. It is this developed theoria which the apostle calls allegory. As we said, he is aware of the term “allegory” but does not at all accept its application.11 (Froehlich, 87–​88)

Diodore later describes theoria as a Spirit-​endowed gift that enables the interpreter to draw out practical applications of Christian theology from the historical events recorded in Psalm 118: Now if one understands Psalm 118 in this way, namely, as fitting (the circumstances) of those who first uttered it as well as those who come after them, one is entirely correct. But this is not a case of allegory; rather, it is a statement adaptable to many situations according to the grace of him who gives it power. . . . Being so rich and lavish, the psalm adapted itself readily to the exiles in Babylon for their request and prayer, but it adapts itself even more precisely to those who fervently long for the general resurrection. Now the understanding of such a theoria must be left to those endowed with a fuller charism.12

In these excerpts from Diodore, Christian truth rests on a historical-​theological reading of the biblical text. The difference between allegory and theoria is not exegetical; it is theological. In other words, the difference lies in the way biblical history is applied. Allegory and theoria both rest on the literal or historical sense of the text, but both apply its meaning in very different ways. Diodore can apply theoria to the general resurrection of Christians based on the facts of Israel’s history. His whole approach contrasts with Hellenic allegory which, he says, has only a superficial resemblance with a literal, historical narrative.

11 Froehlich, 12 

Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church, 87–​88. Ibid., 87, 93.

Antiochene Theoria and the Theological Interpretation of Scripture    353 A related application of theoria can be seen in its connection with typology. Chrysostom is our best source. Unfortunately, lack of space prevents us from analyzing several rich excerpts of typological theoria that appear in Chrysostom’s homilies.13 All references to theoria in the Chrysostom corpora, however, can be simply defined as spiritual illumination into the deeper meaning of divine revelation at it relates to salvation history. Salvation history is a category used by Chrysostom and other fathers as the theological framework for the interpretation of Scripture. Revelation takes place in events, but only as they are interpreted by the words of Scripture. Salvation history refers to the series of historical events given in the OT and NT that are interpreted by the Christian faith as specific acts of God to save his people. In that context, theoria is an inspired perception of the great metanarrative of salvation history given through the words and events of a christologically focused Bible. Therefore, in Chrysostom’s typology, theoria functions as the hermeneutical processing of historical and theological patterns of unity between type and antitype. The pattern is discovered by means of a Spirit-​inspired search (theoria) for the soteriological significance of persons, places, events, objects, or institutions that are providentially prefigured in the OT and fulfilled in the NT. A prime example of this can be seen in how Chrysostom patiently prepares his audience for the deeper truths of Hebrews 12 by slowly going through a chapter-​by-​chapter exposition of the letter. After patterning his exposition of the first several chapters after God’s own patient accommodation to human weakness (sunkatabasis), Chrysostom could then describe in Homily 12 how Paul, the alleged author, used the Melchizedek typology to explain the differences between the Old and New Covenants: “And what is particularly noteworthy is that he shows how great the difference is by the type itself. For, as I said, he constantly confirms the truth from the type, from things past.” The manner in which theoria operates in the interpretive process is exemplified in how Chrysostom interprets Paul’s use of the name “Melchizedek”: And first from the name. “First” (he says) “being by interpretation ‘King of righteousness’: for Sedek means ‘righteousness’; and Melchi, ‘King’: Melchizedek, ‘King of righteousness.’ ” Do you see his precision (akribeian) even in the names? But who is “King of righteousness,” save our Lord Jesus Christ? . . . He then adds another distinction, “Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like unto the Son of God, he remains a Priest always” . . . see how he explains it mystically (hora pos auto tetheoreken)?14

The historical events surrounding Melchizedek were providentially arranged to contain proleptic truths which could only apply to Christ’s eternality. Paul’s spiritual discernment of the higher meaning of Melchizedek’s name, and other historical details in the text, required theoria in order to understand the Christological import of the narrative. Chrysostom specifies theoria as the controlling hermeneutic that governed Paul’s typological exegesis of the OT when he says, “Having concisely set down the whole narrative, he looked at it

13  Developed in an abbreviated form in Bradley Nassif, “Antiochene θεωρíα in John Chrysostom’s Exegesis,” Exegesis and Hermeneutics in the Churches of the East, ed. Vahan S. Hovanhessian (New York: Peter Lang, 2009), 51–​66; and more fully in Bradley Nassif, “Antiochene θεωρíα in St. John Chrysostom’s Exegesis” (doctoral dissertation, Fordham University, 1991), available also on University of Michigan microfilm. 14  Homily 12, PG 63.97.

354   Bradley Nassif mystically (mystikos auten etheorese).” This explanatory comment is of supreme importance for understanding the hermeneutical relationship between typology and theoria. Theoria is the divine illumination of the mind that enables an interpreter to recognize the types that are contained in Scripture. By means of theoria the apostolic author interpreted the literal meaning of the OT by the light of the NT in order to discover the Spirit’s revelatory work in salvation history. The loftier sense originated from and conformed to the literal sense of the Melchizedek story. How does an Antiochene understanding of theoria speak to an Orthodox theological interpretation of Scripture in the modern world? The answers we offer will affect the way we view Scripture and its impact on our entire worldview. The first thing to say is that this way of understanding God’s providential governance of salvation history through typology does not replace ancient or contemporary scholars’ efforts to understand a biblical text’s original setting. Rather, “figural reading” is a way of discerning (theoria) a text’s larger significance in the gradual unfolding of salvation history. Notice how the Antiochenes’ understanding of what a literal meaning is differs from that of most modern exegetes, since they were convinced that one can only do justice to the literal meaning of the text by taking into account its theological subject matter. The Antiochenes did pay attention to questions of authorial intent, a text’s original meaning, and the historicity of biblical narratives. The literal meaning did not diminish a text’s historicity but opened it up to include the theological factors that impinged on its proper handling. Metaphysical convictions intersect with the text. Modern exegetes tend to think we can read Scripture “on its own terms” without metaphysical presuppositions, but that is misguided. Everyone has metaphysical assumptions, whether naturalistic or supernaturalistic, which inform our worldviews. Whether we are aware of it or not, all interpretation is shaped by them. Another key difference between Antiochene and modern assumptions toward biblical exegesis is the recognition of how the progression of history is grounded in God’s providential care. In the name of objectivity, modern exegetes often find it difficult to affirm that divine providence has any bearing on how we read the Scriptures. In his brilliant assessment of patristic exegesis, Hans Boersma has justifiably argued that by abandoning the notion that history is anchored within divine providence, much contemporary historical exegesis can no longer answer the question why history is important. He describes the obvious implications of this loss of faith for biblical interpretation: The loss of faith in providence implies a loss of faith in the sacramental typology of the church fathers. John J. O’Keefe and R.R. Reno describe this loss by saying that “we have trouble accepting the crossing of the Red Sea as connected in reality to the death of Jesus and Christian baptism. We regard it as present and real only in the imagination of the interpreter.” The reason for this, they rightly suggest, is “our profound lack of confidence in the patristic understanding of the divine economy;—​in other words, our faith of nerve with regard to divine providence.”15

Chrysostom recognized the sacramental function of history as well as the sacramental nature of the Scriptures that recorded historical events. He saw in history a much greater

15  Hans Boersma, Scripture as Real Presence: Sacramental Exegesis in the Early Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2017), 88. For the “real presence” of Christ in both type and antitype, see pp. 24–​25.

Antiochene Theoria and the Theological Interpretation of Scripture    355 significance than do modern-​day detractors of patristic exegesis. For Chrysostom, history is a carrier of spiritual content. History and theology coinhere. To strictly approach history as an academic inquiry into what happened in the past would seem oddly reductionistic to the ancient interpreters. Spiritual realities indwell historical events. The providential ordering of history is fulfilled in Christ. Christ, therefore, is the hermeneutical key that unlocks the meaning of history, including the entire Old and New Testaments. Reflecting on the role of divine providence in patristic exegesis, Don Collett rightly observes that “Accounts of the literal sense based upon anything less than the providential intentionality inherent in that history are bound to fail, simply because these alternative histories cannot carry the theological freight of biblical history.”16 The extent to which theoria appears in Antiochene sacramental exegesis is largely implicit. It is no surprise that salvation history is again the context for the typological interpretation of baptism and Eucharist, and theoria is the means by which it is discerned. One finds little to no explicit mention of theoria in Chrysostom’s catechetical instruction and mystagogical homilies due to his pastoral purposes in exegeting the biblical text. His goal is to actualize the meaning the ceremonies have for the Christian life, not on how that meaning can be derived hermeneutically from Scripture. Both Christ and his Church are prefigured in the OT. By applying biblical typology to the Church’s sacramental rites of baptism and Eucharist, Chrysostom recognizes that God’s miraculous acts reach beyond the Old and New Testaments into the ongoing life of the Church in his day. The inclusion of the Church with Christ in salvation history is likely why Chrysostom, and the wider liturgical tradition, did not restrict typological discernment to the relation between the OT and NT. The discernment extends also to the pilgrimage of the Church throughout history. That is likely why we find Orthodox liturgical texts expanding the typological patterns of Scripture to extrabiblical parallels as well as other types of theological symbolism. Liturgical examples include allusions to the fire that did not consume the burning bush in Exodus 3 as a type of the Incarnation in the womb of the Virgin Mary, the Theotokos; the commemoration of the 318 servants of Abraham in Genesis 18 as prefiguring the assembly of bishops at the Council of Nicea in AD 325; the expansion of the Adam/​Christ parallel to Eve/​Virgin Mary; the city of Bethlehem as the gate to Paradise; and the tree of life as fulfilled in the cross. Careful exegesis of Scripture can understandably lead interpreters to question the biblical legitimacy of such examples of ecclesial symbolism. Are these not excessive examples that go beyond the explicit teachings of Scripture? Granted, patristic and liturgical texts do engage in typological excesses that cause us to have moments of sobriety. But what makes both biblical and ecclesial symbolism possible is the structuring of salvation history that is grounded in the eternal plan of God’s providence, and this eternal plan includes both Christ and his Church which are prefigured in the OT and continue in the postapostolic age. The parallels are theological interpretations which can never contradict Scripture, but brim with expanded reflections on Christ and his Church. There is a larger point to be made here that is especially relevant to an Orthodox theological interpretation of Scripture: The way in which the Church’s tradition has expressed

16  Don C. Collett, Figural Reading and the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2020), 129. Collett brings a sophisticated defense of figural readings of Scripture into dialogue with canonical and cultural-​linguistic hermeneutics, and their implications for preaching and exegesis.

356   Bradley Nassif the meaning of the biblical text over the centuries influences the way we understand it. In modern parlance, my point is about reception history, i.e., how a biblical passage functions in the history of the Church. Orthodox interpreters have had a rich treasure trove of sources at their disposal, which can be applied to their interpretation of Scripture. Instead of focusing only on the background of the text, Orthodox interpretation has also focused on its foreground, where Scripture has been heard and expressed in the Church’s dogmatic, liturgical, iconographic, hymnographic, and ascetic traditions. Appropriating the powerful impact the Scriptures have had on the faith and life of the Church has prevented disunity over its core beliefs and the kind of interpretive anarchy that has largely produced over 25,000 Protestant groups and denominations today. Understanding the Church’s consensus patrum, liturgical witness, dogmas, hymns, iconography, and ascetic exegesis of Scripture presents to the Orthodox biblical scholar not an obstacle to correct interpretation, but its proper understanding. This, of course, raises weighty objections: Can the Church’s reception history misinterpret the Scriptures? Do not the fathers disagree among themselves on various subjects? Is this not just another variation of the old question of Scripture versus tradition? The answers to these questions are in the affirmative, but are counterbalanced with important qualifications. Questioning reception history in this way does not mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater by abandoning the Church’s reception of the faith, or limit our attention to exegeting the background and original meaning of the Bible. The history of heresy shows the dangers of that approach. For the Orthodox, the key issue is the content and function of apostolic tradition in the life of the Church. The subject of holy tradition is undoubtedly the most difficult for an Orthodox to explain to those outside the Church because the “mindset” (phronema) and dynamics are so different from Catholic and Protestant notions of authority.17 The mystery of the Church’s tradition is inherent in the mystery of providence. This brings us to the second question we raised at the beginning of the second section: In what ways did the Antiochene writers apply theoria to other figural readings of Scripture? We return to Diodore’s Preface to Psalm 118. There, Diodore observes figural expressions that are used in the psalter such as tropes, parables, and enigmas, and contrasts them with history. In contrast, history is a pure account of an actual event of the past. . . . I had to give my readers a clear statement about them [figures of speech] in the preface already in order to alert them to the fact that some parts of the psalms are meant to be taken literally while others are figurative expressions, parables, or enigmas. What is emphatically not present is allegory. . . . Being an utterance of God, this psalm accompanies generations of human beings, conforming itself to events both actual and on a higher plane. (Froehlich, 88–​91)

Chrysostom provides a more detailed explanation of theoria as it relates to metaphors, proverbs, parables, allegories, etymologies of names, the times and places of biblical events, 17  Reliable

guides through the complexities of Christian tradition include John Meyendorff, Living Tradition (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1978); Georges Florovsky, Bible, Church, Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox View, Vol. 1 Collected Works (Belmont, MA: Nordland, 1972), c­ hapters 5, 6; John Breck, Scripture in Tradition (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2001); Eugenia S. Constantinou, Thinking Orthodox (Chesterton, IN: Ancient Faith Publishing, 2020).

Antiochene Theoria and the Theological Interpretation of Scripture    357 and even the resolving of apparent discrepancies between Gospel writers. In Homily 4 on Matthew, he explains, “And also with regard to the very names, if anyone were to attempt to translate even their etymologies he would derive a great deal of deeper insight (theorian). This is of great importance with regard to the NT.”18 This “deeper insight” could be discovered in the context of salvation history. Chrysostom could also resolve the different descriptions of John the Forerunner in Matthew 11:2–​3 and Luke 7:18 by a deeper contemplative analysis of the historical characteristics of the narratives: “However, this contains no difficult matter, but only requires deeper spiritual insight (alla theorian monon).”19 To arrive at that “deeper spiritual insight,” Chrysostom relied on the literary, historical, and theological facts of the narrative. Similarly, in Homily 34 on the Gospel of John, Chrysostom connects various literary forms of Scripture with theoria. Commenting on John 4:34, “My food is to do the will of him who sent me, and to accomplish his work,” Chrysostom draws attention first to the initial confusion the disciples had over the meaning of Jesus’s words, then explains how the disciples’ bewilderment was intended as a means of divine pedagogy in order to predispose them for advancing to a higher level of understanding: “He did so because he wished first to make them more attentive, as I have said, as a result of their perplexity, and to dispose them to listen carefully to his words, by reason of such enigmatic statements (einigmaton).” Such a pedagogical device may at first seem to be nothing more than the tactful skill of a wise teacher. However, in that same text Chrysostom goes on to say that Jesus wished to convey a higher theoria by the ordinary use of figurative language: See once again how by references to ordinary things He leads them up to the higher vision (anagei pros ten ton megiston theorian). By saying food He signified nothing else than the salvation of the men who were going to come to Him. . . . What end did these figures of speech (tropai) accomplish for Him? For He used them not only here, but all through the Gospel. And the Prophets similarly have made use of the same device, uttering many metaphorical sayings (metaphorikos). What in the world, then, is the reason for this? . . . Do you see how, while the words refer to sensible objects, the significance is spiritual, and by the words themselves He distinguished the things of earth from the heavenly?20

Not all metaphors had a deeper meaning in Chrysostom’s homilies. But notice here the extent and variety of literary forms that were sometimes capable of expressing the spiritual meaning of a biblical text. Figural expressions were used not only in the Gospel of John but also throughout the OT generally. Some figures were so highly saturated with spiritual meaning that hearers became perplexed because of their own lack of spiritual preparation. Jesus raised the minds of his disciples to higher planes of soteriological insight by inducing them to contemplate the spiritual counterpart of the figural senses. In order to apprehend the theoria of the Gospel, one first had to recognize the literal meaning in its actual, ordinary cultural context. Then, through a contemplative vision of the literal sense, the relevant points of similarity between the earthly symbol and its deeper spiritual reality could be known. The hermeneutical restraints on Chrysostom’s

18 

PG 57:41. Homily 36 in Mt., PG 57:413. 20  Fathers of the Church, tr. Sister Goggin (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America, 1957), vol. 33, 334. 19 

358   Bradley Nassif spiritual exegesis were governed by the nature of the narrative itself. The application of theoria to symbolic discourse was hermeneutically controlled by the literal events that occurred within salvation history.

Theoria and Homiletical Pedagogy Another feature of Antiochene theoria was its use in the delivery of sermons. I am not aware of such examples in the homiletical discourses of Diodore, Theodore, and Theodoret, but Chrysostom, the “golden-​mouthed” preacher, provides explicit data. As I have shown elsewhere,21 the goal of Chrysostom’s exegetical method corresponds to his understanding of the nature of revelation as a historically conditioned phenomenon. His homiletical exegesis, therefore, occurs once again within the eschatological framework of salvation history (oikonomia), divine accommodation (synkatabasis), and the Incarnation. Chrysostom wisely patterned his sermons after the manner in which divine revelation had been given. Just as a builder carefully lays one brick at a time in constructing a wall, patiently allowing each layer to dry, so also Chrysostom taught his congregation by carefully placing in their minds one divine teaching (theorema) at a time. In the same manner in which God accommodated his speech (sunkatabasis) to the limitations of human understanding in the providential ordering of salvation history (oikonomia), so also Chrysostom revealed the deeper things of God gradually, according to the spiritual maturity of his parishioners: “Let us also imitate these builders and let us build up your souls in the same way. For we are afraid lest, when the first foundation has just been laid, the adding of the next teachings [lit. “higher doctrines” theorematon] may weaken the former, because your understanding is not sufficiently strong to hold all together firmly.”22 Moreover, a synthesis between eschatology, ethics, and theoria convergences in at least two of Chrysostom’s homilies on the Gospel of Matthew. In Homily 1 he explains the eschatological framework of the Gospel to show that Christians are to pattern their earthly ethics after their heavenly citizenship just as Jesus’s own life joined together heaven and earth. The eschatological ideals are drawn out in Chrysostom’s discussion of the unity between the Old and New Covenants as described in the Sermon on the Mount. In Homily 16 he comments that Jesus in Matthew 5:18 indicates the Old Covenant had completed its work but Christ initiated a new and altogether loftier code of spiritual life. He perceives in the text that Jesus “hints obscurely” at this reality in order to “heighten the hearer’s attention” to prepare them for “a higher way of life.”23 This “higher way of life” is the theoria of Christian existence that is fundamental to Chrysostom’s moral exegesis of Scripture.

21 

Bradley Nassif, “John Chrysostom on the Nature of Scripture and the Task of Exegesis,” in What Is the Bible? The Patristic Doctrine of Scripture, eds. Matthew Baker and Mark Mourachian (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2016), 49–​66. 22  Homily on John 7 in Fathers of the Church, 75–​76. Photios, the tenth-​century patriarchal successor to Chrysostom, attributes the relative absence of theoria in Chrysostom’s homilies to the practical and soteriological requirements of his congregation. Codex 174, 119b, Bibliotheca. 23  PG 57:242.

Antiochene Theoria and the Theological Interpretation of Scripture    359 These brief observations on theoria in homiletical pedagogy are pertinent to a theological interpretation of Scripture that is placed in the service of local parishes. It is clear that we are dealing here with a spiritual interpretation that is more interested in the purpose of exegesis than in the historical meaning of the text. Chrysostom was convinced that the meaning of Scripture can never be completed until the preacher has moved from interpreting a text from a biblical book to the wider canon, and then to the modern context of his hearers. Chrysostom’s vision of the purpose of the homily correlates well with Haddon Robinson’s contemporary definition of expository preaching as “the communication of a biblical concept, derived from and transmitted through a historical, grammatical, literary study of a passage in its context, which the Holy Spirit first applies to the personality of the preacher, then through him to his hearers.”24 This is an excellent definition of how Chrysostom actually viewed theoria in preaching the Word of God. It requires the preacher to first encounter the text in its original situation, then apply the significance of that original meaning to his own life. This meaning is then transmitted to parishioners who are led first into the biblical context and then gradually into its relevance for their personal needs. Homiletical theoria avoids making the sermon simply an intellectual, historical reconstruction of past events. Rather, the pastor’s goal is to read the needs of the flock, interpret the Bible according to its originally intended and providentially guided meaning and then apply its contemporary significance in a wise, dynamic and lifegiving way.

Theoria as Illumination Finally, the relation of the Holy Spirit to the process of biblical interpretation is the most distinctive meaning of theoria, according to John Breck, an American Orthodox priest and biblical scholar. The technical nature of our analysis is more complex in this section than in other uses of theoria we have discussed in previous portions of our chapter. Father Breck wants to find an Orthodox way between historicist and fundamentalist approaches to the Bible, as well as between the papal magisterium for Catholics and the sermon for Protestants. He rejects all forms of theoria as a method of messianic prophecy including those described as multiple-​fulfillments, typology or the sensus plenior. Breck’s primary contribution to understanding theoria in biblical interpretation is his emphasis on spiritual illumination in the mind of a biblical author, prophet, or later exegete (both NT writers and contemporary interpreters). Theoria is the synergistic act of an interpreter’s receptivity of Spirit-​illumined insight into the correspondences between type and antitype, fulfilled prophecy or sacramental theology. He distinguishes exegesis from application and sees the main hermeneutical problem at the applicational or interpretive level. According to Breck, theoria includes not only the activity of rigorous scientific research and continuity with the Church’s consensus patrum but also especially spiritual illumination regarding the person and work of Christ. The fruit of theoria is supremely expressed in the Church’s worship and doctrine, “For both the literal and the spiritual sense derive

24 

Haddon Robinson, Expository Preaching (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980), 30.

360   Bradley Nassif from divine activity within history [Breck’s emphasis]. Therefore both senses are discerned by the Spirit-​given grace of theoria.”25 Breck’s interpretation of theoria has been extensively critiqued by Theodore Stylianopoulos, who is also a priest and American New Testament scholar.26 Some of the main concerns of Father Stylianopoulos’s critique can be summarized, and evaluated, in five points: 1. Stylianopoulos points out the inadequacies of Breck’s belief that “scientific study” is capable of conveying the power of Scripture to modern readers. Breck’s views are said to be too unqualified. They do not account for liberal Christianity’s unfaithfulness to the gospel because of its accommodation to modern culture, “nor the epistemological problems raised by the Enlightenment as widely discussed, for example, by Evangelical scholars.”27 In our view, however, Stylianopoulos overlooks Breck’s treatment of the limits of “scientific study” in several paragraphs that explicitly address the inadequacies of higher-​critical presuppositions.28 2. Stylianopoulos observes that Breck rightly connects theoria with Orthodoxy’s liturgical tradition, but thinks that Breck fails to adequately distinguish liturgy from theological reasoning. Athanasius and the Cappadocian fathers not only worked with an all-​embracing spiritual vision but also interpreted Scripture in contextual and grammatical terms, especially in their debates with heretics. In balancing Breck’s mystical emphasis on theoria with discursive reasoning, Stylianopoulos rightly underscores an abundance of grammatical and contextual methods in patristic exegesis. However, St. Basil’s teaching on the continuity of tradition (On the Holy Spirit, par. 66) would not seem to support Stylianopoulos’s rejection of “patristic appeals to the authority of the liturgical tradition for the explication of doctrine.” Basil himself appealed to doxological expressions of the Trinity as the fruit of discursive patristic exegesis. 3. Breck includes a section on faith in his writings, but according to Stylianopoulos, Breck “does not see its affinity to the patristic theoria.” Theoria “is nothing other than the horizon of living faith . . . that apprehends the transforming saving power of the biblical word released by the Holy Spirit, whether through sermon, individual reading, or corporate celebration in worship.” Stylianopoulos concludes there is nothing uniquely Orthodox about Breck’s interpretation. Catholics and Protestants also affirm this truth and see the need for inner illumination by the Spirit. Stylianopoulos appreciates Breck’s contention that the church fathers and biblical authors interpreted Scripture with an inspired theoretic vision. But he reminds Breck that the fathers “also provided a mass of straightforward [instructional and ethical] interpretations applied to faith and practice. The bulk of these instructions, as seen in Chrysostom’s homiletical commentaries, are given without one-​sided reference either to theoria or the eucharistic vision,” though they may well be presupposed.29 25 John Breck, The Power of the Word in the Worshiping Church (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1986), 112; “Orthodoxy and the Bible Today” in The Legacy of St. Vladimir, eds. J. Breck, J. Meyendorff, E. Silk (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1990), 141–​157. 26 Theodore G. Stylianopoulos, The New Testament: An Orthodox Perspective, Vol. 1 (Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1997), 168–​174. 27  Ibid., 170. 28 Breck, The Power of the Word, 98–​99. 29 Stylianopoulos, The New Testament, 171–​172.

Antiochene Theoria and the Theological Interpretation of Scripture    361 4. A fourth area of analysis is Stylianopoulos’s disagreement with Breck’s belief that typology can be discovered through grammatical-​historical exegesis: “Both allegory and typology go beyond the level of contextual-​grammatical exegesis and must be appreciated at the hermeneutical level of their purpose and function . . . both have their respective merits, but neither as historical-​critical exegesis.”30 However, compared to the evidence set forth in previous sections of our chapter, Professor Stylianopoulos seems mistaken on the historical nature of prophecy, typology, and the relation of theoria to grammatical-​historical exegesis. The original historical context, and authorial intent, are theologically conditioned categories that are to be understood in relation to providential history. Providence is both historical and theological, with a foot in both worlds. 5. Finally, Stylianopoulos correctly affirms that the truth claims of Scripture must be authoritatively interpreted according to the doctrinal consensus of the Church in order to avoid uncontrolled diversity and ecclesial disunity. This doctrinal consensus “functions both as the unitive framework and the ultimate measure of the various methods and diverse interpretations of Scripture.”31

Conclusion In this chapter, I have described and illustrated the various usages of Antiochene theoria, and suggested modest ways in which it can enhance Orthodox theological interpretation today. As we have seen, Antiochene theoria was much more than simply a literal versus allegorical approach to Scripture. It was the historical and theological lens through which Scripture was read and applied. Of course, this is only one of a plurality of hermeneutical approaches the Orthodox tradition has engaged over the centuries. Yet, its purpose (skopos), theological theme (hupothesis), and exegetical procedures offer a balanced corrective to the extremes of allegorical excess and the spiritual barrenness in much of modern historical criticism. An Antiochene approach provides the Orthodox interpreter with an overall orientation to Scripture that seeks to unite historical exegesis with the Church’s theology. This unified vision occurs through a synergistic, ascetic effort that is illuminated by the grace of the Holy Spirit as it relates an interpreter’s exegesis to the events of salvation history, with Christ and his Church as its goal.

Bibliography Hans Boersma, Scripture as Real Presence: Sacramental Exegesis in the Early Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2017). John Breck, The Power of the Word in the Worshipping Church (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1986).

30  31 

Ibid., 173. Ibid., 174–​175.

362   Bradley Nassif John Breck, “Orthodoxy and the Bible Today,” in The Legacy of St. Vladimir, eds. J. Breck, J. Meyendorff, E. Silk (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1990), 141–​157. John Breck, Scripture in Tradition (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2001). Eugenia S. Constantinou, Thinking Orthodox (Chesterton, IN: Ancient Faith Publishing, 2020). Brevard Childs, The Struggle to Understand Isaiah as Christian Scripture (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004), 130. Don C. Collett, Figural Reading and the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2020). Jean Dumortier, ed., Jean Chrysostome, Commentaire sur Isaïe, Sources Chrétiennes 304 (Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1983). Georges Florovsky, Bible, Church, Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox View, Vol. 1 of Collected Works (Belmont, MA: Nordland, 1972). Karlfried Froehlich, Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984). S. Goggin, tr. Fathers of the Church, vol. 33 (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America, 1957). Walter Kaiser Jr. The Uses of the Old Testament in the New (Chicago: Moody, 1985). Walter Kaiser Jr. “Psalm 72: An Historical and Messianic Current Example of Antiochene Hermeneutical Theoria,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 52, no. 2 (June 2009): 258–​270. John Meyendorff, Living Tradition (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1978). Bradley Nassif, “Antiochene θεωρíα in St. John Chrysostom’s Exegesis” (doctoral dissertation, Fordham University, 1991), available also on University of Michigan microfilm. Bradley Nassif, “‘Spiritual Exegesis’ in the School of Antioch,” in New Perspectives on Historical Theology: Essays in Memory of John Meyendorff, ed. Bradley Nassif (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 343–​377. Bradley Nassif, “Antiochene θεωρíα in John Chrysostom’s Exegesis,” in Exegesis and Hermeneutics in the Churches of the East, ed. Vahan S. Hovanhessian (New York: Peter Lang, 2009), 51–​66. Bradley Nassif, “John Chrysostom on the Nature of Scripture and the Task of Exegesis,” in What Is the Bible? The Patristic Doctrine of Scripture, eds. Matthew Baker and Mark Mourachian (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2016), 49–​66. Bradley Nassif, The Evangelical Theology of the Orthodox Church, foreword Andrew Louth (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2021). Haddon Robinson, Expository Preaching (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980). John Sailhamer, “1 Chronicles 21:1—​A Study in Inter-​Biblical Interpretation,” Trinity Journal 10 (1989): 33–​48. Theodore G. Stylianopoulos, The New Testament: An Orthodox Perspective, Vol. 1 (Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1997). Alberto Vaccari, “La ‘teoria’ nella scuola esegetical di antiochia,” Biblica 1 (1920): 20–​22.

Chapter 23

E astern and Ori e nta l Ort hod oxy A Brief Survey

Anthony G. Roeber The qualifying terms “Orthodox,” “Oriental,” and “eastern” reveal the assumption that underlies this chapter—​that Christian unity was and remains a work in progress. Diversity and disagreement about who Jesus of Nazareth was, and is, account for the use of these three terms. Geographical distance, political upheavals, and lack of awareness about how Syriac, Greek, and Latin terms and concepts changed over time played a critical role in the eventual divisions among Christians of the first seven centuries AD. Even the word “Christian” is a Greek neologism that emerged during the early 30s AD in the multicultural third city of the then-​Roman Empire (Antioch on the Orontes). The noun identified both Jewish and Gentile followers of the “anointed,” the masi()h about whose identity and role Second Temple Jews disagreed among themselves. Most scholars of early Christianity share this beginning assumption—​that what some choose to call the “Jesus Movement” covered a large, diverse, and never successfully united set of claims to what followers heard spoken by Jesus himself, remembered and finally recorded in the earliest Gospel according to Mark: “Who do you say that I am?” (Mark 8:29); (subsequently Matthew 16:15; Luke 9:20) (Irvin and Sunquist, 2001, 22–​46; McGuckin, 2017, 4–​14). The earliest description of what Christians aspired to is revealed in the second-​century term “catholic” meaning “for all peoples of the world.” All of the groups treated in what follows continue to identify with that term. The term “orthodox” (right praising, right believing) had pre-​Christian roots in Plato’s Symposium (for example) identifying correct (orthe) belief (doxa) that does not claim provable knowledge (episteme) but is not ignorance, either. Equally important, the Greek translation of the terms in the Hebrew Bible for “praise” or “glory” had settled on “doxa” and Christian writers continued that tradition in their own recounting of the “glory of the Lord.” The need to append this term to “catholic” emerged in fourth-​century controversies, and the designations “eastern”—​eventually replaced the term “East Roman imperial” or “Melkite” as opposed to “oriental,” i.e., characteristic of the majority of believers in the eastern Roman provinces of Syria and Egypt and the western Empire as “Latin” (McGuckin, 2020, 4). Because of geopolitical pressures exerted on them by aggressive outsiders, Coptic, Ethiopian, and Armenian colorations of Christianity became

364   Anthony G. Roeber markers of political-​linguistic identity as well, a pattern of cohesion that did not include Syrian Christians, for reasons that will become clear. Nor, finally, did the qualifying term “eastern” remain the exclusive inheritance of Christians in the Eastern Roman Empire, as the history of Christians in Georgia revealed.

The Syriac Orthodox Christians Pride of time and place remain the prerogative of Christians whose Semitic-​language roots led to self-​description as Nasraye (“Nazarenes”) perpetuating their familial-​tribal memories of the Aramaic-​speaking early disciples of the southern Galilee district. “Syriac,” a dialect version of Aramaic, emerged in written form during the first century and remained predominantly a Christian language in the Persian, Roman, and Arabic empires. Especially on the far eastern frontiers of Christianity’s spread, what Greek and Latin Christians would compose as biographies, martyrologies, and lives of the saints, Syriac writers encompassed in the word “story” or “tale.” Some of Jesus’s early followers may also have had a working knowledge of koine Greek as propertied fishermen. Jesus himself, a trained worker in stone, could not have been unaware of the nearby cosmopolitan Roman provincial city of Sepphoris. The influence of the early Jewish Christian community in Jerusalem in shaping the collective memory of Syriac/​Aramaic speakers was cut short by the city’s complete destruction by the Romans in AD 70. Antioch emerged as a prolific and deeply influential center of liturgical life among the centers of Syriac Christianity within the Roman Empire. But over time the urban communities of Edessa and subsequently Nisibis provided the opportunity for the flourishing of Syriac in the disputed lands on the sometimes open, sometimes closed, borders between the Roman and the Persian Empires (Riedel, 2012; Debie, 2010). The Syriac tradition contributed a severe strain of individual asceticism in the form of isolated or wandering desert male figures who, as members of the “perfect,” had little positive to say about sex or marriage with the singular exceptions of Bardaisan of Edessa, Aphrahat, and Ephrem of Nisibis; perhaps more so than in other areas of early Christianity leadership roles remained in the hands of male ascetics who took a generally dim view of human sexuality and even marriage and gradually adopted monastic community models that had emerged in communities further to the west (Roeber, 2018, 24–​28). Evidence for worship and the understanding of the Hebrew Bible—​in a form known as the Peshitta, a “common” “simplified” version also unique to the Syrian tradition—​and Christian writings remain sparse. What is known confirms particular characteristics of the Syriac tradition. The Didache, a handbook of instructions for those seeking baptism into the Church also reveals part of the eucharistic prayer life of the Syrian tradition that in the most eastern areas celebrated an anaphora of Addai and Mari (dating from perhaps the year AD 200 identified with Thaddeus of Edessa believed to be a disciple of the apostle Thomas, or the apostle Thaddeus himself). The prayer is notable for not including Jesus’s words of institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper. The eastern Syrian rituals for baptism also continued a designation of the Holy Spirit as “she,” reflecting the Hebrew and Aramaic origins of the Syriac Christians. In the more western Syriac areas, the Liturgy of St. James associated with Jerusalem and the liturgical developments at Antioch made lasting impressions

Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy    365 on liturgical life beyond the cultural borders of Syriac communities. So influential was one central Eucharistic prayer (anaphora) that came out of Antioch that its redaction was attributed to the spectacular preaching bishop John “the golden-​mouthed” (Chrysostom). A surviving fragment of a Greek gospel harmony at the Dura Europos site (ca. 235?) reveals that the more famous harmony developed by Tatian the Assyrian had not been unique. Reliance on such harmonies persisted even when the Syrians adjusted to hearing the more widely accepted synoptic and Johannine gospel texts (Brock, 2008; Milavec, 2003; Teicher, 1963; Parker, Taylor, and Goodacre, 2013). The development of liturgical chant and hymnody in Syriac also fed the prayer life of non-​Syriac Christians, nowhere more so than in the poetry of Ephrem of Nisibis, whose hymnographic impact echoed long after non-​ Syriac Christians had forgotten his commentary on Tatian’s Diatessaron. Ephrem’s flight from his native Nisibis to Edessa encapsulates the perilous life of eastern Syriac Christians under Sassanid policies of persecution, toleration, and renewed hostility. Increasing isolation from other Christians in the West accounts for the absence of the Syriac from the ecumenical councils called by the Roman emperors by the fifth century. Participant defenders of the creedal statements developed at Nicaea (325) and I Constantinople (381), the Syrian “Church of the East” in the Sassanid Empire had already developed a doctrinal position that made it impossible for it to accept the Council of Ephesus (431). That council’s dominating theologian Cyril of Alexandria had long harbored suspicions about Syrian Christological teachings held by the Archbishop of Constantinople, Nestorius. Similar suspicions had been articulated by Eusebius of Caesarea, who believed Tatian to have been the instigator of the severe asceticism identified with extreme Encratite heresy and perhaps Manichaean dualisms. The Christians of Antioch by the early fifth century reflected such internal divisions in the three and eventually four different churches with rival bishops all claiming legitimacy as heirs of Nicaea. Each needed the approval of those bishops whose correct doctrine (the bishop of Rome and the pope of Alexandria) the emperor Theodosius I had identified in his decree cunctos populos in 380. Questionable degrees of loyalty to Nicaea, to the anathematized Arius of Alexandria, or to “semi-​Arians” such as Eusebius of Caesarea himself alarmed Cyril, who suspected that the root cause of the Syrian refusal to address the mother of Jesus as Theotokos (the God-​bearer) lay in the teachings of the great Syriac theologians Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia. Both theologians reposed in the communion of the broader Christian catholic tradition but suffered posthumous condemnation. The Church of the East played no part in these later disputes, since it had refused assent to the 431 Council and in the judgment of the churches in Rome, Alexandria, Constantinople, and in part, Antioch, had left the catholic-​ orthodox communion (Petersen, 2005; Petersen, 1992; van Rompay, 2008; Behr, 2011, 3–​28). The attempt to reconcile Alexandrian and Antiochian theological and linguistic differences emerged in the Council of Chalcedon’s acceptance of Pope Leo of Rome’s tomos that failed to convince the Alexandrians and their Syrian supporters in Antioch itself. For those Christians, any talk of Jesus having “one hypostasis in two natures” could only lead logically to a teaching that he was really two persons. For the Latin West and the Syrians and Greeks who accepted Chalcedon, the followers of the deceased Cyril’s insistence on “one nature incarnate of God the Word” overcompensated for the Church of the East’s error. As a result of the disagreements, and despite imperial attempts to circumvent the problematic terms under dispute, Christians by the fifth century had split into three camps with the East Roman emperors determined to enforce by military coercion adherence to

366   Anthony G. Roeber all four councils called by their predecessors. “Only in the Syriac tradition [were]all three strands . . . represented” (Brock and Taylor, 2001, 28). Attempts by the imperial church to reconcile “diophysite” and “miaphysite” theologies within the empire failed despite two subsequent councils (Constantinople II, 553, and Constantinople III, 680–​ 681). The death (548) of the empress Theodora, who held miaphysite theological views, discouraged Syrian miaphysites from hoping that their beliefs and worship could be held without risking persecution. Before her death, Theodora had saved the miaphysite Patriarch of Antioch Severus from arrest and secured his refuge in Alexandria. After Severus’s death in 538, Theodora persuaded Pope Theodosius I of Alexandria to ordain as bishop Jacob Baradaeus (500?–​578), who in turn secretly ordained a clergy and thus established a miaphysite Syrian church that probably represented the majority of Syriac speakers within the eastern Roman Empire by the end of the seventh century (Saint-​Laurent, 2015). Both miaphysite and diophysite Christians claimed Antioch as their patriarchal seat; both eventually had to adapt to the rise of Islam, the Arabic language, and the subsequent decline of Syriac as the primary language of worship, scriptural commentary, and theological reflection.

The Coptic Orthodox Christians The word “Coptic” evolved from the ancient language of Egypt via the Greek (h)ai gyptios through Arabic to European colonizers to designate the language and the faith that encapsulates the rich and tumultuous history of early Christianity in Egypt. The language of ancient Egyptians but written in the Greek alphabet signals the impact of Hellenization on this ancient civilization. Just so, because the largest-​known settlement of postexilic Jews made Alexandria their home, they too became enmeshed in disagreements about the extent to which Gentile philosophy, literature, and the arts could be reconciled with the teachings of the Hebrew Bible. More than one version of a collection of the scrolls in Hebrew that are commonly known as Torah (teachings) had survived the return from Exile in 538 B.C. One version of these was translated into the “common” or koine Greek at the behest of the Ptolemaic ruler Ptolemy Philadelphus (285–​247 BC). The historical, prophetic, and wisdom books received later translation, and most scholars believe competing Greek versions vied for pride of place. In order to give one translation legitimacy among those who insisted on the sanctity of only one, received Hebrew version of scripture, the translators were numbered to equal the seventy elders of Israel, hence the name Septuagint (h)oi (h)ebdomekonta. This translation became the most widely used and known among Jews not living in Palestine and, eventually, the version of the Hebrew Bible cited by the earliest Christian compilers of the Gospels and epistles. Just as in the case of Antioch, Alexandria (the second-​largest city of the Roman Empire) became a center of Hellenized Judaism and its Jewish community one of the many whose languages, cultures, and history were collected into the famous Alexandrian Library that suffered an initial conflagration while Julius Caesar was in the city, and subsequent losses into the Christian era (Jobes and Silva, 2000, 29–​44; Farag, 2014; Timbie, 2010). If we seek the origins of Coptic Christianity, we should look first to this large, influential, preexisting Jewish community that provided the fertile soil to receive the gospel, just as was

Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy    367 the case in the Syrian lands and culture. That historical fact poses a problem for later oral traditions that maintained exposure by the Copts to Jesus as an infant as he, his mother, and his legal father fled into Egypt to escape the murderous intent of Herod the Great. Yet another oral tradition locates the spread of Christianity in the person of John Mark, the purported author of the Gospel of that name (AD 60–​70). But that Gospel was written in Rome for a Gentile audience. If John Mark, the cousin of Barnabas, was attempting to record the memories of Peter the apostle’s preaching, this too appears to be an odd story of mission and transmission (Meinardus, 1999). Scholars have been forced to conclude that “nearly everything that is recorded about the early history of Alexandrian Christianity lies in the Church History of Eusebius,” a controversial work in its own right characterized by “a judicious mixture of authentic record with a good deal of suppression of fact and occasional outright lies . . . in defence of himself and his friends and their outlook toward the nascent imperial church establishment under God’s messenger Constantine” (Grant, 1971, 133). The impact of Greek philosophy in Alexandria drew immigrants such as the shadowy Sicilian Pantanaeus, the Stoic–​subsequent Christian who is credited with the founding of the Catechetical School of Alexandria (190?). Its most famous alumni included Clement of Alexandria and the brilliant and controversial Origen. The use of Old and New Testament scripture in shaping the liturgical life of Coptic Christians also eludes those searching for surviving hard evidence before the controversies of the fourth century. The need to ponder how non-​Christian philosophies could be used to support the claims of Christian revelation emerges in the eventual response by Origen to the critic of Christianity Celsus (ca. 177). This neo-​Platonist dismissed Christian ethics as nothing new and derided the claims of Christians to an exclusive revelation of an incarnate God (McGuckin, 2017, 146–​150). Beyond cosmopolitan Alexandria, an equally profound movement emerged from Coptic Christianity and shaped the later history of Christianity world-​wide: monasticism. Although individual hermits and anchorites sought the solitude of the Nitrian desert west of Alexandria much as their Syrian counterparts had in Syria or Palestine, the Coptic pursuit of the ascetic life developed into communal collections of male laity intent on fleeing what they regarded as the dangers of urban life to genuine Christianity. By the time the former wealthy merchant son “father of monks” Antony (251?–​356) began his ascetical pursuits, Coptic Christianity appears to have become composed of, if not exclusively, predominantly gentile adherents. Despite his own seeking solitude, Antony attracted followers, but as an illiterate ascetic, produced no written “rule” for such admirers. In addition to the sayings and events of Antony’s own life recorded by Athanasius of Alexandria, the revered ascetic would be called on by that bishop to support the correct understanding of the Christian faith written in the first creedal statement at Nicaea in 325, in opposition to the Alexandrian presbyter Arius. Antony’s rough contemporary, Pachomius (290?–​346) solidified the emerging pattern of communal or cenobitic monasticism that would be studied and emulated in both eastern and western Christian circles. But monasticism remained a lay-​led movement and despite early admiration for these ascetics, bishops came to regard the movement as a dangerously alternative church whose spiritual authority admired by many remained largely divorced from the liturgical life of the urban Christian centers led by bishops, presbyters, and deacons. Over time, however, the monastic ascetic model even captured the episcopal office itself (Goehring, 1986, 236–​257; Sterk, 2009). The event in the history of Coptic Christianity that shook it to its foundations emerged in the person of the Alexandrian presbyter Arius (256?–​336). A Libyan Berber by descent,

368   Anthony G. Roeber Arius absorbed during his studies with Lucian of Antioch some of the condemned Paul of Samosota’s theology. Personally ascetic, reserved, and an accomplished orator and writer, Arius developed a view of the Son, the Logos, as a created, and hence, subordinate God. Confronted by his bishop Alexander, Arius refused to admit that his views were not in accord with the received tradition of the Christian communities throughout the empire. Unable to corral his obstinate presbyter, Alexander called on the regional synod of bishops in Egypt first, and when this failed and Arius’s influence manifested itself in nearly every region of the Empire, the division among Christian communities alarmed the new emperor Constantine. Sympathetic toward the recently persecuted Christians, Constantine could not afford internal division among them, given his need for peace within an empire that had only just witnessed his defeat of a rival for the throne. Perhaps to avoid allowing a pro-​or anti-​Arian Egyptian bishop to preside over the imperially called council, Constantine chose Nicaea, far to the east for the place, and as episcopal presider, his personal friend Hosius, who occupied the see at Cordoba, in Spain. The decision to choose the word homoousios (same essence) to describe the Son’s relationship to the Father troubled the participants, since the word can be found neither in the Greek Septuagint nor in the Greek Christian New Testament. Despite Arius’s condemnation, Arian Christianity survived and flourished in both the eastern and western areas of the then-​empire. The deacon Athanasius, who had accompanied Alexander to Nicaea now as Archbishop, would fall under imperial disfavor as Constantine’s sons revealed their own semi-​Arian theological preferences. Athanasius’s refuge at Trier in the West and the uncompromising support he received from the bishop of Rome helped to solidify the reputations of Rome and Alexandria as the premier defenders of Nicaean orthodoxy. When the bishop of the new imperial capital Constantinople was awarded the second place of honor after Rome in the commemorations of the chief episcopal sees in 381, Rome protested the demotion of its ally Alexandria, but to no avail. Alexandrian Coptic Christianity remained the vital theological center of the imperial Church into the fifth-​century attack on the suspect Syrian theologies. Rome remained steadfast in its support of Cyril of Alexandria’s success at the Council of Ephesus in 431 that insisted on the proper Christological understanding of Jesus’s mother as “the God-​bearer” (Theotokos) and gave iconograph symbolism of its support by constructing the new church of Saint Mary Major in 434. The new temple not only affirmed Ephesus’s teaching but also through its mosaics showed the connections that bound the Hebrew Bible to the Christian New Testament (Miles, 1993, 160). The rupture between Coptic Alexandria and Latin Rome at Chalcedon came therefore as a profound shock and disruption of a long-​established relationship. Despite Leo of Rome’s protestations that his tomos and the Chalcedonian formula were in complete accord with the teaching of Cyril of Alexandria, the Copts were not convinced. Toleration by subsequent emperors of miaphysite candidates for ecclesiastical offices led to Rome breaking communion with Constantinople between 484 and 519. Both the emperor Justin and his formidable nephew Justinian I reversed the toleration to appease Rome. but Justinian then permanently alienated Coptic Egypt by the use of military force to impose adherence to the Chalcedonian formula. Despite heavy-​handed imperial policy, Coptic Alexandria maintained its pope (at times in exile) from Dioscoros (484–​454) even as a “Melkite,” i.e., imperial-​Chalcedonian patriarch also claimed the city, Egypt, and all Africa as its jurisdiction. The arrival of Islamic invaders in 639 ended the Melkite presence in favor of the miaphysite Coptic pope Benjamin I, as the Melkite Peter IV fled to Constantinople. The Islamic rulers established the Coptic Orthodox as the legitimate Christians in Egypt,

Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy    369 guaranteeing that the ancient see of Alexandria would continue as an episcopacy held in esteem, though not claiming jurisdiction among the “Oriental” Orthodox (Siecienski, 2017, 180–​186; Samuel, 2001).

The Ethiopian Orthodox Christians The earliest reference to Christianity in what is today Ethiopia comes from the Christian source the Acts of the Apostles (AD 80–​90?) that mentions a eunuch from the queen or kandake of Ethiopia—​possibly Amanitore the Kandake of the Kushite kingdom of Meroe between the Nile and Atbara rivers. The eunuch puzzles over a difficult passage in the Book of Isaiah and then asks the deacon Philip for baptism (Acts 8:26–​40). Philip’s Jewish identity as one of the seven chosen in Jerusalem to assist the apostles would fit well with a supposition that he would have conversed easily with a eunuch who was part of a Jewish diaspora that used the trade route to come from Ethiopia to the Second Temple when the opportunity arose. The later history of warfare and desertification have left no further details of this Jewish-​Christian community. The tradition of a connection of sexual union between King Solomon and a queen from “Sheba” that produced an ancient Israelite-​Ethiopian royal genealogy cannot be documented before the Ethiopian Middle Ages. Only in the fourth century does the influence of Alexandria on Ethiopian Christianity emerge in the person of Frumentius (300?–​380) a Roman war captive who was subsequently ordained bishop by St. Athanasius the Great, thus beginning the liturgical influence of Alexandria on whatever had already been practiced since apostolic times. The long association with Alexandria as the source for its bishops led the Ethiopian Christians to follow the Copts’ example in refusing to acknowledge the Council of Chalcedon and to identify Ethiopian Christology as miaphysite. To Jewish and Greco-​Roman influences on Ethiopia’s Christian identity, scholars assign the third, that of Syrian asceticism and eventually, its miaphysite Christology that grew under the patronage of the king Caleb at Aksum, where the Septuagint Greek and New Testament writings received translation into the ancient language of Ethiopia, Ge’ez. Theological training was based on the Jewish Targum that, much like rabbinic Judaism’s tradition of commentary on the Hebrew Torah, seeks to inculcate knowledge of biblical and patristic teaching but translating those texts and commentary from the ancient Ge’ez into the contemporary Ambaric language. The contours of liturgical worship and other mysteries in Ethiopian Christianity were shaped by the Jewish festivals and Alexandrian practices, including both baptism and circumcision and a “Christian Sabbath” observance that is not universal but more typical in the northern areas of Ethiopia, reflective of the Jewish-​Christian influence from Axum. Whether Ethiopian belief that the original Ark of the Covenant is preserved at Axum can be traced to ancient, or to later, medieval times remains a subject of debate among scholars. The subsequent rise of Islam and the collapse of Christianity in the area of modern Sudan (Nubia) conspired together to isolate Ethiopians from other Christians in a manner both reminiscent of what occurred with the Church of the East, but with the significant difference that the Ethiopians remained connected to a broader, if persecuted tradition of miaphysite Orthodox Christians in other lands and cultures (Grillmeier, 1996 2:4, 295–​323; Crummey, 2000, 457–​462).

370   Anthony G. Roeber

The Orthodox Christians of Armenia Much like the Orthodox Christians of Ethiopia, whose lands lay beyond the bounds of Christianity’s birthplace within the then-​Roman Empire, Armenian Christians comprised the first kingdom whose rulers adopted Christianity as the approved religion. An ancient area in the mountainous region surrounding Mount Ararat, a Bronze Age civilization developed there into a powerful kingdom before Rome left its republican history behind for imperial ambitions. Oral traditions attribute Christianity’s arrival to the apostles Thaddeus and Bartholomew, hence the official name: the Armenian Apostolic Church. Unlike Ethiopia, however, Armenia remained in sometimes close, sometimes distant, contact with its sister churches both prior to, and after, the Christological controversies that produced the 451 Council of Chalcedon that the Armenians would reject in 506 and 555 at the Synods of Dvin. Again unlike Ethiopia, Armenia had long been contested ground between the empires of Persia and Rome even before its disparate and only loosely federated tribal groups agreed to a “King of Great Armenia” and a conversion to Christianity possibly in AD 301 or by the time of Constantine the Great’s toleration of Christians in the Roman Empire. Even the process of Christian missionary activity had reflected outside political pressures. Syrian Christian missionaries preached the gospel in the southwestern territories while a Greco-​Roman influence dominated the northwestern areas and their local feudal leaders. The overthrow of Parthian rule in Persia and the rise of the Sassanid Dynasty after AD 226 endangered those Armenians who had supported the former rulers and guaranteed the division of Armenia between Persia and the Eastern Roman Empire in 387. The Sassanid ruler recognized the Church of the East as the only legitimate form of Christianity in Persia by 410, a development that put additional pressure on Christians in eastern Armenia to align themselves with a church that was self-​consciously separate from the Roman imperial version (Toumanoff, 1963; Mahe and Thomson, 1997). The struggle of Armenia for political independence from outside pressure contributed to a tendency to identify the Christianization of Armenia with the figure of Gregory the Illuminator (240?–​325), who grew up and received his theological formation in Caesarea, not Armenia itself. Despite establishing a tradition that called for Gregory’s successors to be ordained to the episcopate in Caesarea that lasted until 374, the patronage of the Armenian rulers from Tiridates III onward has threatened in the writings of scholars such as the late Roman Catholic convert Cyril Toumanoff to obscure the fact that the new regime also patronized and supported Syrian clergy. The importance of both Persian language and culture as well as Syriac Christianity in shaping part of Armenia’s history has characterized the career of revisionist scholars such as Nina Garsoian. Theological education in Armenia demanded mastery of both Greek and Syriac. The Armenian language emerged in written form with the creation of an alphabet by the early 400s. The subsequent translation of both Old and New Testament by 434 guaranteed an indigenous legacy of text and commentary on both Syriac and Greek sources (Clarkson, 2008; McGuckin, 2017, 497–​498; Brock and Taylor, 2001, II: 186). The liturgical life of the Armenian Apostolic Church reflected the same mix of influences. The predominant one was Syrian, a reflection of missionary efforts from Antioch, although the exposure to the growing influence of Constantinople’s imperial church and Gregory’s

Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy    371 awareness of Cappadocian liturgical customs played their own role in shaping the Armenian practices. By the late 400s the liturgical influence of Jerusalem became even more pronounced, evidenced in the Armenian retention of Jerusalem’s custom of celebrating the Nativity of Christ with his baptism by John on January 6. The Armenian celebration of the liturgical hours amounted to a creative adoption and adjustment to the needs of Armenian language and culture. Whether Armenian customs that prescribe the use of unleavened bread, the absence of the Byzantine second mixing water with the wine for Eucharist, and the distribution of the Mystery to the faithful in the form of the consecrated bread only were in place from the beginning, or developed later continues to be debated. A major argument in favor of the latter position would point to the use of leavened bread on the part of the Church of the East from which group the Armenians rigorously distanced themselves (Taft, 1998, 17, 23; Taft, 1993, 219–​24; Findikyan, 2015; Thomson, 2006). The Armenians did not participate in the Council of Chalcedon. Both geographic distance and its own tradition of a decentralized political and ecclesiastical polity made it difficult to resist a belligerent attempt on the part of Persia beginning in 428 to eliminate any remnants of Roman Christian influence in Armenia. While the Roman Christians were meeting in Council at Chalcedon, Armenians were fighting and losing the Battle of Avaryr and only achieved a degree of self-​determination from Persia in 485. The growth of miaphysite theology in Syrian circles led by Philoxenus of Mabbug (?–​523) had already led to an improved version of the Septuagint scriptures in Syriac by 508 only a few years after the emergence of the Armenian alphabet and liturgical texts of 434. As bishop Philoxenus championed the miaphysite cause that came to dominate the theology of the eastern regions of Armenia. Armenia suffered from the East Roman Emperor Justinian’s obsession with reconquering as much of the vanished western empire as possible. Instead of concentrating on the growing Persian threat, Justinian’s attempt to end the Iberian War (526–​532) with the “Eternal Peace” of 532 could not disguise long-​term military failures despite the invention of the new post of magister militum of Armenia. The East Roman emperor Maurice, faced with renewed warfare with the Sassanids (572–​591) eventually secured a treaty that guaranteed the East Roman dominance over much of Armenia. Intent on imposing Chalcedon just as his predecessor Justinian had, Maurice expelled all miaphysite Armenians from Roman territory and put to death several hundred miaphysite monastics in Edessa before himself falling victim to a revolt and his own execution. Those Armenians in Cappadocia and Trebizond within the Eastern Roman Empire formally endorsed Chalcedon in 593, but the vast majority of Armenians remained loyal to the Armenian Apostolic Church (Adontz, 1970; Arutjunova-​Fidanjan, 1988–​89; Greatrex, 2005; Sarkissian, 1975; Olster, 1993).

The Eastern (Melkite) Orthodox The designation of those Christians who accepted the decisions of all the imperially called councils between AD 325 and 681 as “Eastern” threatens to obscure the fact that through all of those centuries, despite occasional ruptures, both Latin Western and Greek Eastern citizens regarded themselves as members of the authentically “catholic” and “orthodox” Church. Nor did either group ever doubt that this correct understanding of Christianity had been

372   Anthony G. Roeber present from the time of the apostles. Nor did either group agree to be identified by linguistic names. Each insisted that it was part of the “Roman” empire in all its linguistic diversity. Nonetheless, a “Latin” west and “Greek” east accounted for the majority of Chalcedonian Christians in the Eastern Roman Empire up to the calling of the Council of Chalcedon in 451. Not long after, however, geopolitical reality forced “the Romans” to acknowledge the disappearance of the western empire by 476, a scant generation after Chalcedon. Some Syrian Christians remained within the Chalcedonian consensus, but as already noted, the separation of the Church of the East by the early fifth century and the subsequent loss of many others to the West Syrian followers of the miaphysite Jacob Baradaeus by 538 left Chalcedonian Christianity in “Antioch and All the East” as the patriarch’s title claimed, a minority voice. The same minority maintained a precarious foothold in Alexandria and Jerusalem only with the support of imperial military forces. The singular and significant exception to this pattern lay in the Caucasus, where the Christians of Georgia accepted the Chalcedonian formula, with an attendant rift between that church and its former ally and supporter the Apostolic Church of Armenia, against Persian invaders. Georgia’s political and ecclesiastical history remains even more difficult to reconstruct than that of Armenia. Despite ancient references to Colchis, descriptions of “Iberia” threaten to create a picture of a unified political and Christian identity that was not the case. Sharing with Armenia the Caucasian landscape and dominance of local feudal lords, Georgia also developed patterns of pro-​Roman or pro-​Persian allegiances. Eventually three different Georgian scripts developed, both Syriac and Greek contributing to their emergence. Even the relationship of the Christian communities to Antioch or Constantinople has remained a matter of controversy. At least one argument suggests that with the participation of Georgians in a revolt against Persian overlords and the emergence of King Vaktang a connection by 482–​484 to Constantinople becomes clear. The first ordination of a Katholikos of Iberia was done by the miaphysite Peter the Fuller of Constantinople. But if this was indeed the case, loyalty to a miaphysite theology did not last beyond the year 555, when Georgia refused to endorse Armenia’s decision to reject Chalcedon at the second Council of Dvin. It is just as plausible to argue that diophysite Syrian influence from Antioch had already taken deep root in some areas of the rugged landscape that moved Georgia into permanent alliance with the Chalcedonians within the Roman Empire (Grdzelidze, 2011; Rapp, 2010; Toumanoff, 1954; Toumanoff, 1963; Shanidze, 2000). Rome’s bishops both prior to and after Chalcedon insisted on unqualified endorsement of its understanding of Christology. As a result, attempts to reconcile miaphysites to Chalcedon faltered in the face of Rome’s refusal to lift anathemas pronounced against those who could not accept the decisions and definition of Christ’s “two natures in one person” formula. Nonetheless, it was Greek that remained a vital connective tissue that bound together Syriac, Coptic, Georgian, and Greek speakers and writers during the entire period under examination. Latin failed to achieve a similar standing, and with the death of the prolific and influential Augustine of Hippo (430) the Latin “catholic orthodox” had lost the last theologian who was capable of reading and writing in Greek. Church of the East monastics and miaphysite West Syrians journeyed to Egypt to consult with Coptic monastics. The prevalence of koine Greek that had spread throughout the areas of Alexander the Great’s pre-​Christian empire in addition to the impact of the Septuagint version of the Hebrew Bible put an indelible stamp on that part of the Roman Empire that by the late fifth century had to admit, politically and geographically that it had become “eastern.” Even the exposure

Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy    373 to the eastern empire’s inner workings by the deacon and later bishop of Rome Gregory (590–​604) during his time as Rome’s envoy (apocrisarius) to the imperial court did little to alleviate the growing tension between Rome’s claim to a primacy based on its apostolic foundation by Peter, and the conviction shared by other bishops in the East (Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem) that they were no less “apostolic.” Even Gregory’s later urging those four bishops to stand with him against Constantinople’s bid for a primacy that derived from a see located in the imperial capital failed to convince them. Despite the eventual designation of the five ancient sees as a “Pentarchy,” Rome never wholly endorsed the idea, a reticence coupled with its claim to a unique and universal apostolic primacy, the claim that would by the ninth century, begin the estrangement that ended by the thirteenth, in a schism between Chalcedonians that has lasted until the present day (Johnson, 2014, 1–​122; Siecienski, 2017, 189–​194; L’Huillier, 1996, 53–​56, 267–​296). The continuing struggles between dio-​and miaphysite Christologies had focused the attention of both Alexandria and Rome on the Church in Antioch. That city gradually lost its military, civil, and economic importance and, because of the suspicion cast on Antiochene theology by Alexandria, was also never named as a center of Nicaean orthodoxy. In the wake of Chalcedon, Antioch, like Rome, was a city in decline and the defense of Chalcedonian Christianity shifted permanently to the imperial capital. “In the eastern territories of Byzantium, in the aftermath of Chalcedon, neither the Latins or the Syrians were any longer of great political or theological moment” (McGuckin, 2004, 241). The city of Antioch suffered a devastating earthquake in 526, and its port never recovered despite Emperor Justinian’s efforts to restore some of the former glory of what had once been the empire’s third-​largest city. In the controversies of the next century that swirled around imperial attempts to bypass Chalcedonian language and reunite mia-​and diophysites, Antioch played no significant part. With the decline of Rome and Antioch and the precarious standing of Chalcedonians in Coptic Egypt, Constantinople and its emperors played an increasingly definitive role in shaping “eastern” Orthodox identity that by the seventh century maintained only a distant and sporadic contact with Chalcedonians in the disintegrated Latin West (Behr, 2011, 100–​129; Siecienski, 2017, 195–​207). The rise of Islam in the early seventh century would sever Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem from Constantinople, effectively ending the possibility of a fully functioning Pentarchy. This set the stage for the growing tensions between Old and New Rome and their respective claims to be catholic and orthodox but increasingly pillorying each other as “Latin” and “Greek.” The “eastern” Orthodox would eventually take some cold and bitter comfort in their quest for proper identity in the fact that the rising Islamic powers first among Arabs, and then Turks would always identify these Christians as “Rum,” i.e. “Roman.”

Conclusion The relationship of the “eastern” Orthodox to the “Oriental” with regard to biblical scholarship in the third decade of the twenty-​first century remains dependent on specific parts of the world and the specific churches involved. The degree to which a particular eastern or Oriental Church embraces or rejects engagement with critical biblical scholarship emerges as part of a larger set of attitudes. Relationships between the West Syrian (Oriental) and

374   Anthony G. Roeber (eastern) Greek Antiochian Orthodox include agreements regarding the manner in which mixed marriages are to be treated, and both groups participate in critical scholarship on the biblical texts whose interpretations once played a major role in the Christological disputes that once seemed insuperable (Roeber, 2018, 201–​204). West Syrians, Malankara Indian, and Armenian Apostolic Christians study in European and North American universities and schools of theology and contribute to their respective churches’ engagement with biblical and liturgical studies. By contrast, in the case of the Ethiopian, Eritrean, and Coptic Oriental churches, such levels of engagement have been not only rare but also, in some cases, deeply controversial. The internal tensions within the Coptic Church resulted in the 2018 murder of the monastic bishop Epiphanius at the St. Macarius Monastery. But the roots lay in the pioneering work of the monastic priest Fr. Matta El Meskeen (1919–​2006), who had written on biblical exegesis as well as liturgical and monastic history and practices as part of his rejuvenation of that famous monastery. Silencing Fr. Meskeen had been part of the late Pope Shenouda III’s attempt to perpetuate a largely isolated self-​identity for Copts. Those who embraced engagement with critical scholarship and discussions with other Christians championed by the current Patriarch Pope Tawadros II saw themselves as the heirs of Meskeen’s pioneering efforts. Political repression of the Copts within Egypt, while contributing to the defensive posture of many within that Church, does not characterize the Coptic diaspora in the Americas or Australia, where awareness and embracing of critical biblical scholarship is not automatically regarded as a threat to the tradition of that Church (Ibrahim, 2020). Just so, eastern Orthodox churches in Romania, Serbia, and Greece, and the “diaspora” members of those churches, including some from the Church of Russia, expect an informed engagement with critical biblical scholarship from their clergy and lay leadership. Nonetheless, conservative eastern Orthodox suspicion of critical scholarship continues to find a voice from within some monastic communities and “Old Calendar” dissenters, who like their Oriental counterparts regard the contours of biblical scholarship as but one manifestation of the “pan-​heresy” of ecumenism. Whether a common approach to the question of the Orthodox and the Bible can be found may depend on the work of joint theological commissions. In at least one geographic context for example, on October 8, 2019, the eastern and Oriental Orthodox bishops in North America revived the Joint Commission of Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches in the continued pursuit of unity among the Orthodox. Voices of an authentic Tradition revealed in the critical grappling with Sacred Scripture in worship, teaching, and witness that can be heard in all these churches and suggest some of the central consequences of that grappling for both the Oriental and the eastern Orthodox Christians.

References Adontz, Nicholas. 1970. Armenia in the Period of Justinian: The Political Conditions based on the Naxarar System. Trans. Nina G. Garsoian. Lisbon: Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation. Arutjunova-​Fidanjan, V.A. 1988–​89. “The Ethno-​Confessional Self-​Awareness of Armenian Chalcedonians.” Revue des Études Arméniennes 21: 345–​363. Behr, John. 2001. The Case against Diodore and Theodore: Texts and Their Contexts. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy    375 Brock, Sebastian. 2008. The Holy Spirit in the Syrian Baptismal Tradition. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press. Brock, Sebastian, and Taylor, David G.K. 2001. The Hidden Pearl: The Syrian Orthodox Church and Its Aramaic Heritage. II. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press. Clarkson, James P.T. 2008. “Classical Armenian.” In R.D. Woodward, ed., The Ancient Languages of Asia Minor. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 124–​144. Crummey, Donald. 2000. Land and Society in the Christian Kingdom of Ethiopia: From the Thirteenth to the Twentieth Century. Champagne-​Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Debie, Muriel. 2010. “Writing History as ‘Histoires’: The Biographical Dimension of East Syriac Historiography.” In Arietta Papaconstantinou, Muriel Debie, Hugh Kennedy, eds., Writing “True Stories”: Histories and Hagiographies in the Late Antique and Medieval Near East. Leiden: Brill, 45–​75. Farag, Lois M. 2014. “The Early Christian Period (42–​642): The Spread and Defense of the Christian Faith under Roman Rule,” in Farag, ed., The Coptic Christian Heritage: History, Faith, and Culture. New York and London: Routledge, 23–​38. Findikyan, Daniel. 2015. “Armenian Church: Liturgical Year”; “Armenian Church: The Sacraments”; “Armenian Lectionary of Jerusalem,” in Edward Farrugia, ed., Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Christian East, 2nd ed. Rome: Pontifical Oriental Institute, 192–​194; 195–​197; 200. Goehring, James A. 1986. “New Frontiers in Pachomian Studies.” In Birger A. Pearson and James E. Goehring, eds., The Roots of Egyptian Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 236–​257. Grillmeier, Aloys. 1996. Christ in Christian Tradition 2:4. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press. Grant, Robert M. 1971. “Early Alexandrian Christianity.” Church History 40 (2): 133–​144. Greatrex, Geoffrey B. 2005. “Byzantium and the East in the Sixth Century.” In Michael Maas, ed., The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Justinian. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 477–​509. Grdzelidze, Tamara. 2011. “Patriarchal Orthodox Church of Georgia.” In John Anthony McGuckin, ed., The Encyclopedia of Eastern Orthodox Christianity. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 264–​275. Harvey, Susan Ashbrook. 2010. Song and Memory: Biblical Women in the Syriac Tradition. Milwaukee: Marquette University Press. Ibrahim, Ishak. 2020. “Egypt’s Bishop Murder Saga: A Look at Impacts on the Coptic Church.” https://​timep.org/​com​ment​ary/​analy​sis/​egy​pts-​bis​hop-​mur​der-​saga-​a-​look. Irvin, Dale T., and Sunquist, Scott W., eds. 2003. History of the World Christian Movement: Volume I: Earliest Christianity to 1453. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books. Jobes, Kafren H., and Silva, Moises. 2000. Invitation to the Septuagint. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic. Johnson, Scott Fitzgerald. 2014. “Introduction: The Social Presence of Greek in Eastern Christianity, 200–​1200 C.E.” In Johnson, ed., The Worlds of Eastern Christianity, 300–​1500, VI: Languages and Cultures of Eastern Christianity: Greek. Farnham, UK, and Burlington, VT: Ashgate Variorum, 1–​122. Kolbaba, Tina. 2000. The Byzantine Lists: Errors of the Latins. Champagne-​Urbana: University of Illinois Press. L’Huillier, Peter. 1996. The Church of the Ancient Councils: The Disciplinary Work of the First Four Ecumenical Councils. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s seminary Press.

376   Anthony G. Roeber Mahe, Jean-​Pierre, and Thomson, Robert W., eds. 1997. From Byzantium to Iran: Armenian Studies in Honour of Nina G. Garsoian. Atlanta: Scholars’ Press. McGuckin, John. 2004. Saint Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press. McGuckin, John. 2017. The Path of Christianity the First Thousand Years. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic. McGuckin, John. 2020. The Eastern Orthodox Church: A New History. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. Meinardus, Otto Friedrich August. 1999. Two Thousand Years of Coptic Christianity. Cairo: American University in Cairo Press. Milavec, Aaron. 2003. The Didache: Text, Translation, Analysis, and Commentary. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press. Miles, Margaret. 1993. “Santa Maria Maggiore’s Fifth-​Century Mosaics: Triumphal Christianity and the Jews.” Harvard Theological Review 86 (2): 155–​172. Olster, David Michael. 1993. The Politics of Usurpation in the Seventh Century: Rhetoric and Revolution in Byzantium. Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert. Parker, D.C., Taylor, D.G.K., and Goodacre, M.S. 2013. “The Dura-​Europas Gospel Harmony.” 2013. In David G.K. Taylor, ed., Studies in the Early Text of the Gospels and Acts. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 192–​228. Petersen, William L. 1992. “The Christology of Aphrahat, The Persian Sage: An Excurses of the 17th Demonstration.” Vigiliae Christianae 46: 241–​256. Petersen, William L. 2004. “The Diatessaron and the Fourfold Gospel.” In Charles Horton, ed., The Earliest Gospels: The Origins and Transmission of the Earliest Christian Gospels—​ The Contribution of the Chester Beatty Gospel Codes P-​45. London and NY: T&T Clark International, 50–​68. Petersen, William L. 2005. “Tatian the Assyrian.” In Antii Marjanen and Petri Luomanen, eds, A Companion to Second-​Century Christian “Heretics.” Leiden and Boston: Brill, 125–​158. Rapp, Stephen H. 2010. “Georgian Christianity.” In Ken Parry, ed., The Blackwell Companion to Eastern Christianity. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 137–​155. Riedel, Meredith L.D. 2012. “Syriac Sources for Byzantinists: An Introduction and Overview.” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 105 (2): 775–​802. Roeber, A.G. 2018. Mixed Marriages: An Orthodox History. Yonkers, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press. Saint-​Laurent, Jeanne-​Nicole Mellon. 2015. Missionary Stories and the Formation of the Syriac Churches. Berkeley: University of California Press. Samuel, V.C. 2001. The Council of Chalcedon Re-​Examined: A Historical and Theological Survey. Philadelphia: Xlibris. Sarkissian, Karekin. 1975. The Council of Chalcedon and the Armenian Church. New York: Armenian Church Prelacy. Shanidze, Mzkala. “Greek Influence in Georgian Linguistics.” In Sylvain Auroux, ed., History of the Language Sciences/​Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaften/​Histoire des sciences du language. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 2000. Siecienski, Edward A. 2017. The Papacy and the Orthodox: Sources and History of a Debate. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Sterk, Andrea. 2009. Renouncing the World yet Leading the Church: The Monk-​Bishop in Late Antiquity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy    377 Taft, Robert F., S. J. 1993. The Liturgy of the Hours in East and West. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press. Taft, Robert F., S. J. 1998. “The Armenian Liturgy: Its Origins and Characteristics.” In Thomas F. Mathews and Robert S. Wieck, eds., Treasure in Heaven: Armenian Art, Religion and Society. New York: Pierpont Morgan Library, 13–​30. Teicher, J. L. 1963. “Ancient Eucharistic Prayers in Hebrew (Dura-​Europas Parchment D Pg 25).” Jewish Quarterly Review New Series: 54 (2): 99–​109. Thomson, Robert W. 2006. “Homilies and Biblical Commentary in Classical Armenian Writers.” In Roberta R. Ervine, ed., Worship Traditions in Armenia and the Neighboring Christian East. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, St Nersess Armenian Seminary, 175–​186. Timbie, Janet. 2010. “Coptic Christianity.” In Ken Perry, ed., The Blackwell Companion to Eastern Christianity. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 94–​116. Toumanoff, Cyril. 1954 “Christian Caucasia between Byzantium and Iran: New Life from Old Sources.” Traditio 10: 109–​189. Toumanoff, Cyril. 1963. “Iberia between Chosroid and Bagratid Rule.” In Studies in Christian Caucasian History. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 374–​377. Van Rompay, Lucas. 2008. “The East (3): Syria and Mesopotamia.” In Susan Ashbrook Harvey and David G. Hunter, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 365–​386.

Chapter 24

Bib lical Exeg e si s i n t h e Sy riac Chu rc h e s Sebastian P. Brock The Setting While early Christianity was spreading westward in Greek and Latin, it traveled eastward in Syriac, a dialect of Aramaic, whose Palestinian form had been the spoken language of Jesus. No doubt at first Aramaic-​speaking Christians had made use of different local Aramaic dialects, but it was the dialect of Edessa (modern Şanliurfa in southeast Turkey), known as Syriac, that in due course came to be adopted as the standard literary language of Christianity to the east of the river Euphrates. The early history of Syriac Christianity is shrouded in obscurity, an obscurity that was further obfuscated, rather than illuminated, by the growth of legends, from the early fourth century onward, concerning the conversion of King Abgar of Edessa and his correspondence with Christ.

The Biblical Texts Available What seems reasonably certain, however, is that by the middle/​second half of the second century much of the Hebrew Bible had been translated into Syriac, either by Jews and/​ or by Christian converts from Judaism, while for the Gospels a Harmony of all four Gospels, associated with the name of Tatian (fl. c. 160) and known as the Diatessaron, evidently circulated widely as the predecessor of a translation of the separate Gospels, perhaps made c. AD 200. This translation, known as the Old Syriac, is preserved in three fragmentary manuscripts, two of which are palimpsests. It is likely that the Old Syriac version once contained other books of the New Testament, but nothing survives. Evidently, around AD 400 a revised translation of the Greek was made of the whole New Testament apart from 2 Peter, 2–​3 John, Jude, and Revelation. This revision, today known as the Peshitta, must have been circulated very effectively, since it rapidly became

Biblical Exegesis in the Syriac Churches    379 the standard New Testament text, a status it still retains in the modern churches of Syriac tradition.1 The Christological controversies surrounding the Councils of Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451) led not only to the three-​way split in Syriac Christianity2 but also to the need felt for a further, more accurate, revision of the Syriac New Testament. Behind this project, completed in 507/​8, was the miaphysite theologian Philoxenus (d. 523), whose Commentary on the Prologue of John contains a polemic against the Peshitta’s lack of exactitude in certain passages: When those of old undertook to translate these passages of the Scriptures they made mistakes in many things, whether intentionally or through ignorance. These mistakes concerned not only what was taught about the Economy in the flesh, but various other things concerning different matters. It was for this reason that we have now taken the trouble to have the Holy Scriptures translated anew from Greek into Syriac. (Ed. de Halleux, p. 53)

(The passages of the Peshitta that he specifically considered to be unnecessarily open to a diophysite interpretation were Matthew 1:1 and 18; and Hebrews 5:7 and 10:5). Significantly, Philoxenus is recorded by later writers as having stated that the Greek biblical text had greater authority than the Syriac, since the Gospels quoted the LXX and not the Syriac Old Testament. The “Philoxenian” revision does not survive apart from quotations, but it served as the basis for a much more philologically minded further revision, made c. 615 and known as the Harklean (after its author, Thomas of Harkel). It is interesting to note that this fashion for very literal translations can also be found in Latin and Armenian translations of that time. The Syriac translation of the Old Testament, also known as the Peshitta, had been made from Hebrew, but as the prestige of Greek increased, a need was felt for translations to be made from the Septuagint as well, and traces of a sixth-​century translation of certain books survive, possibly also associated with Philoxenus. Much more influential was the translation of Origen’s revised text of the Septuagint in his Hexapla; this major undertaking was the work of Paul of Tella, working in Alexandria alongside Thomas of Harkel. Known to scholars as the Syrohexapla, but to Syriac readers as “the Seventy,” this version survives complete for the Wisdom and Prophetic books, but only partially for the Pentateuch and historical books. Although all this work of revision and translation was done by scholars of the Syriac Orthodox tradition, the potential value for exegesis of the Syrohexapla did not escape the notice of Timothy I (d. 823), Catholicos Patriarch of the Church of the East in Baghdad, and in one of his letters he tells how he commissioned copies from a manuscript belonging to the Syriac Orthodox Monastery of Mar Mattai, in north Iraq. These will be the source for the many quotations from the Syrohexapla in the Old Testament Commentaries by Isho‘dad of Merv later in the ninth century (see what follows). Information about the Septuagint, Origen’s work on it, and the various other Greek versions was available through the Syriac translations of Eusebius’s Church History (VI.16–​17) and Epiphanius’s treatise on Weights and Measures.

1 

2 

Further information can be found in Brock (2006). Church of the East (East Syriac), Chalcedonian (Maronite), and Syriac Orthodox (West Syriac).

380   Sebastian P. Brock

Basic Assumptions Virtually all interpreters of the Bible in antiquity, Jewish and Christian, worked with four basic assumptions: the biblical text is an organic whole, it is divinely inspired, it is relevant for all times, and it is often cryptic (thus a stimulus to exegetical activity).3 All the different Syriac biblical translations mentioned above could be described as having “scriptural authenticity,” and so, were understood as inspired, a point that was often stated, though hardly ever discussed. Being inspired meant that these biblical texts were capable of bearing meaning to all generations, which in effect meant that Scripture is necessarily multivalent; as Ephrem put it, “The facets of [God’s] words are more numerous than the faces of those who learn from them.” He goes on to compare the Scriptures to a fountain that can never be drunk dry. In order, however, to discover that meaning, or rather the plurality of meanings, the Syriac Fathers, from Ephrem onward, regularly emphasize that a right approach is essential: the biblical text is not just a dead object of the past, as it were an archaeological artifact, but a living entity that needs to be treated as such. The poet Jacob of Serugh (d.521) explains: With the hearing [of Scripture] let love run to receive it, for without love the person who hears will not be benefitted. Scripture is a treasure full of riches for whosoever approaches it: the guardian who is in charge of it is love; love is the key which is able to open all doors: without it no one can enter toward God. (Ed. Akhrass, Memra 86, 180–​183) Aphrahat, in the first half of the fourth century was the first of many Syriac authors to compare the word of God in Scripture to a pearl: the word of God resembles a pearl: to whichever facet you turn it, its appearance is beautiful. (Demonstration 22.26)

The image of the Pearl with its multiple facets is explored by Ephrem in his Hymns on Faith 81–​85, but more directly relevant in connection with biblical exegesis is the comparison made by Jacob in another memra, between the work of the exegete and that of a pearl-​diver who dives into “the gentle ocean” of the Scriptures in order to bring up pearls. In this passage Jacob emphasizes the need for the assistance of grace, as well as the presence of love: In the depth of the ocean there is a pearl for the person who seeks for it, in the Scriptures too, there is the Word of Life for the person who loves it. The divine Scriptures are like the gentle ocean. the intellect descends like a diver into their depths, it feels around in the depths of prophecy for the pearl which is full of beauties, and brings up the pearl. The intellect is in need of Grace, the Mistress of the Treasure-​stores, for her give over the riches it has discovered in the Lections. As a result of the gift of the Godhead the soul becomes enlightened 3 

All this equally applies to Eastern Orthodox tradition as well: see especially Pentiuc (2014): 169–​198.

Biblical Exegesis in the Syriac Churches    381 so that it can see the beauties that exist in the Scriptures and grasp hold of them. (Ed. Akhrass, Memra 88, 25–​29) Writing about a century and a half later, the monastic author Isaac of Nineveh stresses that for such assistance of grace, initial prayer is needed:4 Do not approach the words of the mysteries contained in the divine Scriptures without prayer and beseeching God for help. Say “Lord, grant me to perceive the power in them.” Consider prayer to be the key to the true understanding of the divine Scriptures.

The Different Literary Genres and Levels of Exegesis It has been necessary to devote a certain amount of space to the nature of the biblical text(s) available to Syriac readers, for the version employed could have an important bearing on the exegesis; this was especially the case for the Old Testament, since the Peshitta and Septuagint could sometimes differ considerably. The situation was particularly acute in the case of commentaries translated from Greek, since earlier translations would supply the Peshitta text, familiar to the reader, for the lemma, but the Septuagint would be presupposed in the commentary proper. Around the turn of the fifth/​sixth century, when the authority of the Septuagint began to be seen as being superior to that of the Peshitta, translation practice changed, and the lemma would henceforth be translated from the Greek, thus removing the disjunction. Exegetical activity can be found in a wide range of literary genres, three of which are of fundamental importance: commentaries proper, homiletic literature, and poetry (including liturgy), and within each of these, subcategories can be identified, while in all cases witnesses may be either in prose or in verse. Each of these three main genres has its own characteristic type of exegesis. This threefold classification according to genre was well described in a work by the seventh-​century East Syriac author Dadisho‘, who uses the terms tash‘ithanaya “historical, narrative,” mtargmnaya “homiletic,” and ruḥanaya “spiritual.”5 The first term he associates with Theodore of Mopsuestia, aimed at a readership of eskolaye, students at the theological schools; the second is described as the approach of Basil and John (Chrysostom), intended for lay people, while the third (associated especially with the Psalms) is directed toward solitaries (and no doubt other monastic readers too). An earlier classification, this time binary, had already been provided by Ephrem in his Commentary on Genesis, where he gave two sets of commentary on Genesis 49, the first su‘rana’ith, “factually,” “practically,” and the second ruḥana’it, “spiritually.” An important further term is also attested, namely pel’ethanaya, lit.’ “parabolic” but also “allegorical.” This was a term that had taken on negative connotations in the East Syriac tradition,

4 

(Syriac) Homily 45, ed. Bedjan, II, 329. Elsewhere (Part II.34.12) Isaac cites “the Fathers” as speaking of “spiritual swimming”; very possibly he was referring to the passage by Jacob just quoted. 5  Draguet (1972): 155–​156; for the term mtargmnaya, cf. the Prologue to Theodore of Mopsuestia’s Commentary on John.

382   Sebastian P. Brock thanks to Theodore of Mopsuestia’s work “Against the Allegorists,” of which a fragment survives in Syriac and is quoted by his namesake, Theodore bar Koni, in the late eighth century. It needs to be realized, however, that this polemic is directed against the allegorical interpretation (identified with pagans and Origen), which seeks to supplant the “factual” meaning, and not against allegorical interpretation that is understood as coexisting with “factual”—​something that is quite often found in the East Syriac commentators, despite their condemnation of “allegory.” For them a term that is sometimes used in the context of non-​“factual” interpretation is theoria, “contemplation,” but often better rendered as “spiritual insight.” In general one can say that “spiritual” interpretation meant interpreting the biblical text in the light of Christ and the life of the Church. Christ is often described as being the hermeneutical “key,” his advent giving a new and deeper meaning to the Old Testament text. Thus in very many cases “spiritual” exegesis is essentially typological, and indeed the Greek term tupos is very frequently found in this context. Modern scholars often characterize the exegesis of the East Syriac tradition as “Antiochene” and the West Syriac as “Alexandrian.” Since “Antiochene” should properly refer to the tradition of Diodore and Theodore (Schäublin 1974), it certainly should not be used of early Syriac exegetes, Ephrem in particular, whose approach is very different. But even with East Syriac commentators who were writing under the influence of Theodore, alongside the latter’s strictly “historical” approach, an admixture of typology is usually to be found. Conversely, with West Syriac authors, “historical” exegesis features alongside typological and allegorical.

Commentaries The earliest surviving commentaries are by, or attributed to, Ephrem (d. 373); his commentaries on Genesis and on Exodus are likely to be genuine, whereas that on the Diatessaron was probably put together by his disciples making use of genuine materials. Although Ephrem’s Commentary on Genesis follows, as one would expect, the sequence of the biblical text, the coverage is very unequal, and over a third of the space is devoted to the opening three chapters. The other passage to which Ephrem devotes special attention is the Blessings of Jacob (Genesis 49), for which he provides, as noted previously, both a “factual” and a “spiritual” interpretation, introducing these two terms into the tradition for the first time. References forward to the New Testament and to the Church are very restrained, and one of the remarkable features of Ephrem’s commentaries on Genesis and Exodus is his use of Jewish exegetical traditions and (in some cases) terminology. From the first half of the fifth century there survives commentary on Qohelet by the monastic author John of Apamaea (aka John the Solitary). Although Qohelet was one of the Wisdom books favored by Evagrius, there appears to be no direct connection with any of Evagrius’s works; nor does there seem to be any connection with Theodore of Mopsuestia’s commentary on the book, for which part of a Syriac translation survives. Spanning the fifth/​ sixth century, the Syrian Orthodox theologian Philoxenus was the author of a commentary (pushaqa) on Matthew and Luke; this, however, only survives in fragments. His major work

Biblical Exegesis in the Syriac Churches    383 on the Prologue of John is also titled “Commentaire” in the French translation, but pushaqa does not feature in the unique manuscript—​written in his own lifetime!—​that contains it: there the work is called a memra, or Discourse. It was in this work that Philoxenus polemicized against the loose translations of the Greek to be found in the Peshitta in certain passages of Christological importance. An extensive Commentary on the Psalms is by Daniel of Salaḥ (Syrian Orthodox; fl. c. mid-​6th c.). After a Prologue, Daniel provides a commentary (described as a memra, “discourse”) on each psalm in turn; this takes the form of an introductory homiletic text, followed by comments on selected verses. He describes his interpretation variously as “factual,” “allegorical,” and “spiritual,” also employing the term theoria several times. At one point (on Psalm 33) he speaks of “entering the inner veil of the wording.” During the course of the fifth and sixth centuries a very large amount of Greek Patristic literature was translated into Syriac, and this of course included several commentaries. The most important and influential of these which survive were Athanasius on the Psalms (in long and short recensions, along with his Letter to Marcellinus, on the use of the Psalms); Basil on the Hexaemeron; Theodore of Mopsuestia on John, with fragments on Genesis, the Psalms and Qohelet; John Chrysostom’s Homilies on books of both Old and New Testaments, with those on Matthew and John the best preserved; Gregory of Nyssa on the Song of Songs; and Cyril of Alexandria’s homilies on Luke. During the time of Arab rule, from the seventh century onward, Syriac writers share with their Greek counterparts a learned and encyclopedic approach, and commentaries are often provided with prologues which take as their model the prolegomena that had become standard in Late Antiquity for medical and philosophical literature. The period opens with the biblical studies of the learned and wide-​ranging Syrian Orthodox scholar Jacob of Edessa (d. 708); Jacob was exceptional in that he had a smattering of knowledge of Hebrew. In his Commentary on the Hexaemeron he brought together a vast amount of the scientific knowledge of his day, whereas his comments on specific passages of biblical books are to be found in sets of scholia and in the course of his extensive correspondence. Further material in the form of extracts from his commentary on the Octateuch features in the Catena known as the “Catena Severi,” whose text in Vatican Syr. 103 was provided in the eighteenth-​ century edition of Ephrem’s works. For the eighth and ninth century a number of running commentaries on biblical books survive, all from the East Syriac tradition, two of which are particularly important. The anonymous commentary on Genesis to Exodus 9:32 has as one of its sources a work by a certain Gabriel of Qatar, one of several seventh-​century writers (who include Isaac “of Nineveh”) from the Gulf region. Remarkably this commentary quotes “the Hebrew” a number of times, though what is meant is far from clear; possibly the information derives from the Commentary on Genesis by Eusebius of Emesa, known today only in the Armenian translation. Writing in the latter half of the ninth century, Isho‘dad of Merv provided commentaries on all the books of the Bible that belong to the East Syriac Canon. His commentary is of especial value since it brings together a great variety of earlier traditions; it also introduces into the East Syriac tradition for the first time evidence from the Syrohexapla. Isho‘dad sometimes indicates his preference for a particular tradition, but quite often he simply juxtaposes them. The very varied character of Isho‘dad’s exegesis can best be illustrated from his commentary on Genesis 22:13, where he combines

384   Sebastian P. Brock textual and philological matters with practical concerns, typology and a hinted rejection of Ephrem’s exegesis. The tree on which the ram was hung. Hebrew and Greek: “Behold, a single ram held in the plant Sabeq by its horns” [=​LXX]. Sabeq: wood of forgiveness [cf. root šbq], that is, the Cross that absolves, and through Him who was crucified debts are remitted, etc. Now it was hung by its horns, with its feet extended, and it marked out the type of the Cross. Some (say) “that ram was a new creation,” but that is not true. Others (say) “the ram was from somewhere else, or it was a mountain (ram).” Mar Ephrem [Comm. on Genesis 20.3] (says) “that there was no ram there, Isaac’s question about the lamb testifies; and that there was no tree there, the (pieces of) wood on Isaac’s shoulder certify. The mountain burst forth with the tree, and the tree with the ram.” The tradition of the Schools (says) that “an angel took it from the sheep of Abraham and placed it in that tree”: first, so that an offering which he made from his own (possessions) might be especially acceptable; secondly, so that it might be known that, just as it was a natural sheep, and not from that tree, or from somewhere else, so too Christ in His humanity was created from human nature, and not from any other nature.

Most of the traditions in these two commentaries can also be found in other East Syriac sources, notably another Anonymous Commentary (on both Testaments), and in the Book of Scholia by Theodore bar Koni (792) and the series of Questions and Answers on biblical passages by Isho‘ bar Nun (d. 828). Isho‘dad’s commentaries proved very influential. Later on in the ninth century use was made of them by the Syrian Orthodox commentator Mushe bar Kipho (d. 903), and much of the content was translated into Arabic by Ibn al-​Ṭaiyib (d. 1043), whence it was translated into Ge‘ez in the fourteenth century, eventually to reach the modern Amharic commentary tradition. Mushe bar Kipho was the author of a number of learned works on philosophical subjects as well as commentaries on a number of books of both the Old and the New Testament, only a few of which have so far been published. Most are provided with Prologues dealing with general historical and literary problems; That on the Psalter runs to 32 sections, two of which (no. 28 on the Greek versions of the Old Testament, and no. 29 stating that both “corporeal” and “spiritual” exegesis should be used, and not just one of them) are also found in Book I of his Commentary on the Hexaemeron (44 and 47; Schlimme 1977). Apart from in the Commentary on the Hexaemeron, Mushe was reticent about citing his sources; in the case of his Commentary on Romans, John Chrystostom has been identified as a recurrent source (Reller 1994). To judge by the number of manuscripts preserved, the commentaries by Dionysius bar Salibi (Syrian Orthodox; d. 1171) and of Barhebraeus have been the most widely read up to modern times; these cover every book of the Bible though, in the case of Dionysius, none in such detail as that on the Gospels. For several Old Testament books Dionysius provides a double, or even threefold, commentary, first on the Peshitta, described as “factual,” and second on the Syrohexapla, described as “spiritual”; in cases where a second “spiritual” commentary is given, the base text is the Peshitta (Ryan 2008, where a translation for Psalm 22 is given for all three sets of comments). Like all the later commentators, Dionysius makes extensive use of the work of his predecessors, both Greek (in translation) and Syriac; among the latter Mushe bar Kepho is especially prominent. The succinct commentary on all the books of the Syriac Bible by the most famous of all Syriac scholars, Barhebraeus (Bar ‘Ebroyo; d. 1286) is titled Awsar Raze, “the Store-​house

Biblical Exegesis in the Syriac Churches    385 of Mysteries.” This is very different in character from all other commentaries in that it also gives great attention to textual and philological matters, the latter concerning in particular correct reading. Unique as far as the Syriac tradition is concerned, but with counterparts in Armenian, is the extensive Commentary on the East Syriac Lectionary, titled Gannat Bussame, “the Garden of Delights.” Author and date remain uncertain; for the latter, dates between the tenth and thirteenth century have been suggested. Although prose was the standard vehicle for commentaries, there was one important exception: the Six Days of Creation were the subject of verse commentaries by the great fifth/​ sixth century poets Narsai and Jacob of Serugh, to be followed at a later date by Emmanuel bar Shahhare (d. 980). Little is known about the readership of commentaries, and it is only some of the later ones that are transmitted in multiple surviving manuscripts. In any case, it is safe to assume that for the great majority of Christians exegesis of the Bible reached them by way of the Liturgy, either through homilies (as Dadisho‘ indicated) on the biblical Lections, or through liturgical texts, in particular hymnography.

Homiletic Literature As Dadisho‘ realized, homiletic literature, being aimed primarily at a lay audience, required its own exegetical approach: it was a matter of communication, where the aim was to bring out the relevance of the biblical text for, and make it meaningful to, the audience. This often required the imaginative re-​presentation of the biblical narrative, at the same time rooted in a close reading of the passage in question. While a great deal of Greek homiletic literature was translated into Syriac, the genre was also popular in Syriac and could take many different forms. The most simple consisted in expanded retellings of particular biblical episodes, usually introducing direct speech and dialogue, or developing dialogue already present in the biblical text. Such “factual” retellings might be in prose or in verse; early examples of the latter are provided by Ephrem’s narrative poems on the Repentance of Nineveh and on the Sinful Woman (of Luke 7). Among several later examples (sometimes wrongly attributed to Ephrem) are two that offer a dramatic retelling of Genesis 22, both introducing Sarah into the narrative, while another concerns Elijah, who holds the “key” to releasing the drought. A special category is provided by poems that have adapted the ancient Mesopotamian genre of the Precedence Dispute to a Christian context. Apart from a brief introduction and conclusion these dialogue poems consist of two biblical characters arguing and speaking in alternate verses. The aim is to explore more deeply what is said—​or left unsaid—​in the biblical narrative; wider theological issues may be brought out, and in several cases the underlying theme lies in the rival claims of reason and faith, a notable example of this being the dialogue between Mary and Joseph. The starting point is Matthew 1:19, where Joseph returns home to find his fiancée pregnant: his reaction to Mary’s account of what had happened is portrayed in a vivid way: it is only when reason eventually admits an element of doubt—​that is, allows for an inkling of faith—​that verification comes in the dream of Matthew 1:20.

386   Sebastian P. Brock In all these cases the exposition is essentially provided by the expansion of the narrative, and there is little or no authorial application of the biblical text to the context of the audience. Much more numerous, and distinctive to the Syriac tradition, are the many narrative verse expositions of biblical passages by the two great poets, Narsai (d. ca. 500) in the East Syriac tradition, and Jacob of Serugh (d. 521) in the West. Jacob in particular is a master in the art of bringing out the spiritual meaning and significance of even the most unlikely and challenging passages. A good example is provided by his memra on Tamar (Genesis 38). Following his usual practice of opening with a prayer for assistance, Jacob then asks “Why would [Moses] have written of a woman who sat like a prostitute /​by the crossroads had she not been filled with some mystery?” The clue to the answer had in fact already been given in brief by Ephrem, who (as so often) was basing himself on Jewish tradition: Tamar, an outsider, had been cheated of her expected entry by marriage into the lineage of Judah, and thus she had been deprived of participating in the line of the seed that would eventually produce the Messiah. It was Tamar’s faith in, and love for, the Messiah to come that is understood as having justified her action. As is frequently the case, Jacob expands on hints given by Ephrem, and goes on to explore the woman’s own feelings and reasoning before resorting to such an outwardly shocking action. By the end of the poem Jacob has succeeded in indicating how Tamar, in her faith, can be taken as a model both for the Church and for the individual soul (lines 405–​416).

Poetry and Liturgy In the passage where Dadisho‘ discusses the three kinds of exegesis, he associates “spiritual” as being suitable for monks. While that is certainly the case (and he was writing for a monastic audience), the place where such exegesis is to be found is essentially in poetry and in liturgy with its profusion of poetic texts, rather than in monastic literature.

Ephrem and His Understanding of Symbols It has already been seen how Ephrem illustrated the distinction between “factual” and “spiritual” exegesis with his provision of two separate commentaries on Genesis 49. The distinction become even clearer if one juxtaposes the approach of his Commentary, essentially “factual,” with that of his poetry where “spiritual” exegesis is found in profusion.6 In his poetry Ephrem is concerned to relate the biblical text to the life of his Christian audience; he does this by seeing Christ (and by extension the Church) as the central locus toward which everything in the biblical text ultimately points. His key interpretational term is raza, “mystery,” but often more helpfully rendered “symbol” in the strong sense (as always in Patristic literature), where the symbol is understood as being ontologically linked with what it symbolizes. For Ephrem these raze are latently present everywhere, in both Scripture (“the Book”) and in Nature; their function is to bring out interconnections and thus to 6 

For this profusion, see Kronholm (1978).

Biblical Exegesis in the Syriac Churches    387 give a deeper meaning to everything in that they serve as pointers to different aspects of divine Reality, above all represented in the incarnate Christ. In some ways Ephrem’s raze can be said to correspond to Maximus the Confessor’s logoi. Although these raze are intrinsically present in both Nature and Scripture, they lie there latent, and in order to perceive them the interior eye of the heart needs to be made clear, allowing it to be illuminated by faith: the greater the faith, the more raze become apparent, allowing the elaborate network of interconnections between the material and spiritual worlds to be seen, an experience that gives rise to wonder and praise. Although Ephrem himself does not use the image, the network of interconnections he envisages might be compared to an elaborate spider’s web, overlooked and barely visible until it is illuminated and made visible by tiny drops of dew. Ephrem makes use of several other terms, as well as raze, among them being ṭupsa, “type”; yuqna “icon, image,” both loanwords from Greek; ṣurta “picture”; dmutha “likeness”; etc., all having overlapping senses, often hard to distinguish. All are taken up in later poetry, but usually without a feeling for/​conscious awareness of the “substructure” that is implied in Ephrem’s thought. With this in mind one might draw a distinction between Ephrem’s symbolic approach to exegesis and the less structured typological approach that permeates subsequent poetry. To illustrate the intricacy of the network of interconnections that Ephrem’s exegesis can produce, the case of John 19:34 is instructive. The text reads “One of the soldiers pierced Jesus’s side with a lance, and at once there came forth blood and water.” Three elements serve as the starting points for typological developments: Jesus’s side, the lance, and the blood and water; the first two provide pointers both backward and forward in time, the third just forward. Displayed schematically (which of course is something neither Ephrem nor any subsequent writer ever does), we have: Past

John 19:34

Future

First Adam’s side (Gen. 2:22) gave birth to Eve

Side of Christ—​2nd Adam

Side of Christ/​Bridegroom gives birth to Bride/​Church/​Sacraments

Sword of Cherub (Gen. 3:24) closes off Paradise from Adam and Eve/​humanity

Lance

Lance removes the sword and opens up Paradise to humanity

Blood and water

Eucharist and Baptism

The Adam-​Christ typology (already present in the New Testament, e.g., 1 Corinthians 15:45) gives rise to the following reversals: Adam I gives birth to Eve I—​leading to death Eve II (Mary) gives birth to Adam II (Christ)—​leading to life/​salvation

At the same time there is a series of miraculous birth-​givings involved: Earth to Adam, Adam to Eve, Mary to Christ, Christ to his Bride (the Church)7 7 

Bridal imagery is discussed in the next section.

388   Sebastian P. Brock In the poetry of both Ephrem and that of later writers the allusion to just one of these typological aspects provides a background of resonances to all the others. It was typological considerations, contrasting Eve’s unquestioning listening to Mary’s wise questioning that gave rise to the image of Mary conceiving through her ear: Just as it was from the small cavity of [Eve’s] ear that Death entered in and was poured out, so through the new ear, which was Mary’s, Life entered in and as poured out. (Ephrem, Hymns on the Church 49:7)

The numerous typological possibilities were explored above all by Jacob of Serugh; thus, for example, in his long verse homily on the Crucifixion he writes: The heavenly Second Adam came from the Father’s house; as He slept on the Cross there came forth Baptism: the Bridegroom’s side was pierced as He slept, and He gave birth to the Bride, just as Adam in type did with Eve. The stillness of the sleep of death fell upon Him on the Cross and there came forth from Him the Mother who gives birth to all as spiritual beings: the Lord of Adam bore as fruit the New Eve in His Sleep, so that, instead of Eve she might be the mother of the descendants of Adam. (Ed. Bedjan, II, 589; Hom. 53 on the Crucifixion) Jacob’s introduction of Baptism happens to be reflected in the wording of the epiclesis over the water in some early West Syriac baptismal rites: May Your living and holy Spirit come, O Lord, and dwell and rest upon this water, and sanctify and may it like the water which flowed from the side of Your Only-​Begotten on the Cross. (Baptismal service attributed to Timothy of Alexandria, 36)

Later Poets and Liturgical Poetry Titles of Christ and of Mary The biblical text provided the source for a large proportion of the titles of Christ and of Mary with which liturgical poetry abounds. Thus the many healings in the Gospel narrative gave rise to the very frequent title “Wise Physician” while typological interpretation provides the key to the origin of some of the more surprising titles, such as “Grass,” based on Psalm 72 (71):16, or “Fatted Calf,” based on the Parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:23, 30). In Ephrem and in Syriac poetry in general, the function of these types is to illustrate different aspects of the divine Economy; Ephrem himself uses them in much the same way as he does with paradoxes. Typology is also the source that provides many of the titles accorded in poetry to Mary; these are essentially relational in character, illustrating different aspects of her role in salvation history. Thus “Fleece” points to the descent of the Word under the aspect of “Dew” (from Judges 6:36–​40) or “Rain” (from Psalm 72 [71]: 6) upon her. Many titles refer to her containing Christ in her womb: thus “Temple” (nawsa < naos), Ark qibota