dost

Hi,

could someone inform me what OT books Basil the Great accepted? Was his OT canon the same as the Protestant canon or did he accept the apocrypha? Did he accept or reject Esther?Unfortunately I have been unsuccessful getting hold of this information from a variety of books discussing the Canon, so I hope perhaps someone here would answer this question.

thanks.

Toto

The Old Testament in the Orthodox Church

Answers to Tough Questions

dost

Hi Toto, thanks for your reply.

The first link is quite interesting. Do we have any statements by Basil the Great to show that he did support the Alexandrian canon? When it is said that he supported the Alexandrian canon, does that not suggest that he accepted the apocrypha as inspired scripture? According to the second link, however, he did not accept the apocrypha.


I am pretty sure that atleast Origen accepted the apocrypha as inspired and even defended it on occasions.

"Julius Africanus, a comtemporary, disputed with Origen over the propriety of his appeal to the History of Susanna, one of the septuagintal additions to the book of Daniel. Origen’s reply to Africanus argues that there were many things in the Greek Bible that were not in the Hebrew scriptures, but that the church could not be expected to give them all up! 40"

[Lee M. McDonald, The Formation Of The Christian Biblical Canon. Revised & Expanded Edition Hendrickson Publishers, 1996 pp 110]

I also have R. M. Grant's "The Formation of the New Testament". In this book Grant discusses Origen's view of the apocrypha and states that the additions to Esther and the story of Bel and the Dragon etc., were accepted by Origen

Lastly Athanasius had in his OT Baruch and Epistle of Jeremiah and the other church fathers mentioned (excluding Basil since I am unsure of him) either have Esther omitted or, like Athanasius, additions such as Baruch. Epiphanius, however, seems to be the only one whose canon matches the Protestant canon.

Toto

The online sources say that Basil wrote about the Old Testament, but I have not read enough to find what he wrote.

There are links to some of his letters here.

There is this

Footnote 10 is Answering Islam quotes this:

If this is all he wrote, it's not clear why it matters.

This issue seems to be mainly of interest to Protestants trying to prove that Catholics are heretical or vice versa. What is your interest in it?

dost

Hi Toto and thanks again.

Two reasons for my interest: 1) Personal interest, I find this to be a fasinating subject and try to read books on it in the library or buy them. 2) I have some Christian friends, both Catholics and Protestants, through the internet and in my university and somtimes we discuss these issues and comparitive religion. Presently I am engaged in a discussion with a Protestant on the topic of the canon and the apocrypha and so asked about Basil because there is nothing concerning him mentioned in any books in my possession.

But I do appreciate your assistance and will try to search the books in my library in the coming days.

Btw, I believe the statement that such and such a Father accepted 22 books does not answer much. For instance, Melito accepted 22 books, but he lacked Esther, Gregory the same, and Origen's 22 contain the apocryphal additions that I mentioned in my previous message. Similarly Athanasius's list contains 22 books, but at the same time he accepts Baruch, Epistle of Jeremiah and omits Esther. So the number 22 does not neccessarily follow that the Father in question accepted the exact Jewish canon, nothing more or less.

Texty

Interesting subject Dost thanks for bringing it up.

I was brought up on the usual 39 OT and 27 NT per the KJV divisions. The OT appocrypha is a valuable read for both helping to fill the inter-testaments period and even if not judged "inspired" in the terms of 2Tim 3:16 none of it to me seems to contradict my understanding of fundamental Bible teaching. What do you think?

dost

Hi Texty,

Depends what you mean by the term "fundamental Bible teaching". What you may deem to be less important or somewhat insignificant may be viewed with a higher importance rating by others. The OT apocrypha do contain certain teachings which are endorsed by the Catholics and strongly opposed by Protestants. These teachings are important to both sides though they may not be described as the fundamental teachings or doctrines of the Bible - doctrines of purgatory and praying for the dead. But it is true that even though Luther relegated the status of the apocrypha, he did nonetheless consider them to be useful and good to read and this I think is the view of most Protestants though some oppose these books quite staunchly.

I am quite interested in studying the arguments used by Catholics and Protestants for and against the inclusion of the apocrypha. Not being a Christian perhaps gives me an oppurtunity to view the matter in a more balanced manner.

Texty

Yes I see, so being a non-christian gives you a dispassionate view. That's not a bad thing in one way. Now I am the opposite! not that I'm a very good Christian, but believe that mainstream Christianity is at significant variance with it's own Bible! whether C of E with the 39+27 or Catholic with the extra ones.

Issues like
1/ The blurring of the distinction between the one eternal God and the function of the Son & Holy Spirit.
2/ The "pre-existance" of Jesus.
3/ The Gospel from Abraham onwards and the fulfillment of it through Jesus Christ.
4/ The mortality of man and the certainty of death as a dissolution of conciousness. Rather than souls passing on to bliss or torment.
5/ The Bodily ressurrection of Jesus from the dead as an example of future assurance.
6/ The world being driven to evil not by some supernatural failed angel, but by individual or collective evil from none other than human beings (called in the Bible The Devil or Satan either individually or collectively)
and many other issues common to Catholic & most protestant none of which are affected either way by the disputed books.