Subject: Byzantine Canon

From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 16:03:57 -0800

Can anybody out there give me some concise information concerning the Old 
Testament and New Testament Canon in the Byzantine Empire during the 
period of manuscript transmission (c.400-1453)??

To be exact, my questions are these:

1. Did the Greek Church during this period accept the LXX Canon 
as Scripture (including the Apocrypha)? Or did they judge the Hebrew 
Canon to be of greater authority?

2. Did they accept the additions to the N.T. books such as is found in 
the codices Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and Alexandrinus (i.e. Clement, 
Barnabas, etc.)?

I appreciate all responses!

Thanks ahead!

-- 
- Mr. Helge Evensen

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 08:09:50 -0700

>Canon to be of greater authority?

As far as I know, the church never officially pronounced on this.
However, since most LXX copies include the relevant Apocryphal
books, they must have been regarded as scripture.

Of course, this does not include the Latin Apocrypha (i.e. the
Apocalypse known as 2 Esdras).

>the codices Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and Alexandrinus (i.e. Clement, 

We might note that Vaticanus does *not* include any NT apocrypha.
Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus do, but they don't contain the same
documents. Nor do later codices contain these apocryphal books.
Since most of the "canon" lists in Eusebius also omit Barnabas,
etc., it is clear that the church, from the fifth century on,
considered the NT canon to be the same 27 books we now use.

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

                            Robert B. Waltz
                         [email-masked]

Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
(A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)

---

From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 02:32:54 -0800

> considered the NT canon to be the same 27 books we now use.

Thanks for your answer, Dr. Waltz.

I have not been able to find very much information on the Canonical 
situation in the Byzantine Empire. 

Are there some references made by the Church Fathers of that area that 
could help in determining whether or not the Byzantine Church during the 
NT-transmission period (c. 400-1453) accepted the O.T. Apocrypha as 
belonging to the Holy Scriptures or the O.T. Canon, i.e. if they 
accepted the Apocrypha on the *same level* with the Canon? Does any of 
the later Eastern Fathers refer to this?
In other words, did the Greek Church in one way or the other make a 
distinction between the Canon and the Apocrypha of the LXX??

I also would like to know in what degree the Greek Church 
transmitted/copied the text of the LXX. How many of the surviving copies 
of the LXX are from the Byzantine area? 

All answers are appreciated. 

Lastly: Can anyone refer me to articles or books that could contribute to 
any clarity on this??

Thanks in advance!

-- 
- Mr. Helge Evensen

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 19:34:26 -0700

>Thanks for your answer, Dr. Waltz.

Once again I must remind people that I am not a doctor, not a professor,
not a seminarian -- just a mathematician who talks too much. :-)

>situation in the Byzantine Empire. 

I probably should point out that there was no "official" canon at this
time -- just as there was no official Catholic canon until the Council
of Trent. The Orthodox churches did eventually have a similar council
to settle such matters; I can't remember the name and date, but it
was relatively recent.

>the later Eastern Fathers refer to this?

I can't cite passages. I seem to recall, however, that the Orthodox
church in general accepted the books. Remember, other than Origen,
none of the eastern fathers read Hebrew. Origen and Jerome were
almost the only ones to comment on the matter.

I believe that most of the versions translated from the LXX (e.g. the
Armenian) include the "apocryphal" books, but again, I can't give
exact data.

>distinction between the Canon and the Apocrypha of the LXX??

In general, no. The LXX was *the* Greek canon, and the church relied
on it explicitly. Certainly all the major LXX codices (Aleph, A, B, C,
N+V, Q) includes the books.

Remember, too, that copies of the LXX tended to retain its distinctive
text (e.g. in Kings or the prophets) when even casual comparison with the
Hebrew would have produced a different text.

>of the LXX are from the Byzantine area? 

This depends on the date, of course. The earliest copies of LXX are
from Egypt. Very many of the later copies are from Athos. Others are
in western libraries but may have originated in Byzantium. But for
exact figures you would have to consult the catalogs.

I wish I could offer more detail, but this is an area I am not
expert on.

                            Robert B. Waltz
                         [email-masked]

---

From: "James R. Adair" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 01:09:34 -0500 (EST)

> distinction between the Canon and the Apocrypha of the LXX??

According to the canon lists given in Swete, _Introduction to the Old
Testament in Greek_, the Eastern fathers were not particularly consistent,
especially early in the period in question.  Some seem to include at least
some "apocryphal" books alongside those found in the Jewish canon without
distinction (e.g., Pseudo-Chrysostom, canon list described by Lagarde,
Junilius, John of Damascus, Ebed-jesu, Apostolic Canons).  Others make
some kind of distinction between the "main" canonical books and the
"peripheral" ones, if they mention the latter at all (Athanasius, Cyril of
Jerusalem, Epiphanius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Amphilochius, Dialogue of
Timothy and Aquila, Pseudo-Athanasius, Leontius, Nicephorus, Laodicene
Canons, Canon list in Codd. Barocc. 206).  The exception to this general
characterization is that even most of those who follow the Jewish canon
(or make a distinction between main & peripheral books) apparently
included the minor books associated with Jeremiah & Daniel with the larger
books, and they also probably accepted the Greek version of Esther and
perhaps also 1 Esdras.

>to settle such matters; I can't remember the name and date, but it

The Council of Jerusalem in 1672 settled the OT canon (more or less) for
the Eastern Orthodox Church, although some differences remain to this day
among the various communions of the EOC.

Jimmy Adair
Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press
    and
Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site
---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <-----------------