The Oxford Handbook of The Bible in Orthodox Christianity Eugen J Pentiuc Full Chapter

The Oxford handbook of the Bible in
Orthodox Christianity Eugen J. Pentiuc

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-oxford-handbook-of-the-bible-in-orthodox-christia
nity-eugen-j-pentiuc/
Copyright Page
Copyright Page
Edited by: Eugen J. Pentiuc
The Oxford Handbook of the Bible in Orthodox Christianity
Edited by Eugen J. Pentiuc
Print Publication Date: Aug 2022 Subject: Religion Online Publication Date: May 2022
(p. iv) Copyright Page
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers

the University‫އ‬s 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) |
Copyright Page
ISBN 9780190948658 (hardback) | ISBN 9780190948672 (epub)

Subjects: LCSH: Bible‫ނ‬Criticism, interpretation, etc. |
Orthodox Eastern Church‫ނ‬Doctrines.
Classification: LCC BS511.3 .O95 2022 (print) | LCC BS511.3 (ebook) |
DDC 220.6‫ނ‬dc23/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
135798642
Printed by Marquis, Canada

Foreword
Foreword
(p. ix) 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 poso
sessed 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 Roo
man 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. Pentiuc‫އ‬s present work: 2[IRUd +Dndo
book 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 signifio
cant 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 Oro
thodox Christianity.
Regarding the text of Scripture, Orthodoxy has never ‫ފ‬canonized‫ ދ‬a specific textual tradio
tion (e.g., Old *reek‫ނ‬Septuagint over Hebrew‫ނ‬Masoretic Text). :hile always breathing
through the Septuagint, the Orthodox Church has not closed the door on other textual
traditions, Origen‫އ‬s 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 Christianity‫އ‬s flexio
bility 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 ‫ފ( ̵̴̵̵̩̭̲̻̫̱̫̩̈́́څ‬readable,‫ ދ‬St.
Foreword
Athanasius‫އ‬s 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 ‫̵̴̵̵̩̭̲̻̫̱̫̩̈́́څ‬: Are they considered canonical as are
the thirty-nine or noncanonical (̷‫̵̴̵̷̵̩̭̮̱̩̲̈́ ۍ‬, St. Athanasius)" Put differently, is it the
ongoing liturgical use of these ‫ ̵̴̵̵̩̭̲̻̫̱̫̩̈́́څ‬that makes them canonical"
All Orthodox traditions insist on the ‫ފ‬centrality of Scripturewithintradition.‫ ދ‬While Scripo

ture as *od‫އ‬s 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 tradio
tion from an Orthodox perspective is more than a mere deposit of faith; it is the Church‫އ‬s
life under the guidance of the Holy Spirit approaching the eschaton.
Perhaps the main characteristic of Orthodox Christianity in terms of biblical

(p. x)
hermeneutics is that there is no ‫ފ‬Orthodox hermeneutics‫ ދ‬in the sense of a well-configo

ured, restrictive, or closed system. Contributors in this section show the diversity of ‫ފ‬Oro
thodox hermeneutics‫ ދ‬diachronically 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 cono
versations. Are the diachronic (i.e., modern historical-criticism) modes of interpretation
ready or even able to ‫ފ‬converse‫ ދ‬with the synchronic (i.e., ancient patristic and postmodo
ern 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 Orthoo
dox unity. Studying and teaching the Word of God as recorded in and conveyed to us
throughout the centuries of the Church‫އ‬s 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 dyo
namism of the Orthodox ̵̴̹̯̩̾̈́ molded throughout the centuries by so many cultures
and tongues.
New York City,
February 2021
+ ELPIDOPHOROS
Archbishop of America
Acknowledgments
Acknowledgments
(p. xi) 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 foreo
word that is more valuable since it comes from a genuine promoter of pan-Orthodoxy unio
ty.
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 Orio
gins, 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 edito
ed 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 gratio
tude to the donor of the Archbishop Demetrios chair.
I express my thanks to St. Joseph‫އ‬s Roman Catholic Seminary in Yonkers, New York, for
hospitality during my Professor-in-Residence stint (Fall 2020‫ށ‬Spring 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 invito
ed me to be the editor of this handbook, for his professionalism, patience, and prompt reo
sponses 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.
Acknowledgments
Each and every contributor to this handbook is fully worthy of my warmest thanks‫ނ‬an ino
ternational and ecumenical group of fine experts in Bible and cognate fields who ano
swered 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!
'oxa tď Theď‫ފ‬Glory to God!‫ދ‬
Eugen J. PentiucbbbbbbbbbbJanuary 1, 2022
Boston, MassachusettsbbbbbbbbbbCircumcision of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (p. xii)
List of Contributors
(p. xiii) List of Contributors
Mersha Alehegne is Associate Professor of Ge‫އ‬ez Philology, Department of Linguiso

tics 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 Unio

versity of America. He researches the history and evolution of Byzantine liturgical
structures and offices in the manuscript tradition, and how the official liturgy intero
sects with private piety.
Daniel Assefa is Director of Tibeb Research and Retreat Center and author of
L‫އ‬$pocalypse des animaux Hen ‫ ށ‬: 8ne propagande militaire (Brill, 2007) and
Space and Time in Enoch ‫ށ‬. A Narrative Critical Analysis, 2018 (UNISA, Unpubo
lished dissertation).
Michael G. Azar is Associate Professor of Theology‫ނ‬Religious Studies at the Univero

sity of Scranton in Pennsylvania. He has previously published a variety of works reo
lated to the impact of the Bible in Eastern Christian‫ށ‬Jewish interaction.
Bruce N. Beckis 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 Behris the Regius Professor of Humanity, University of Aberdeen, and former
Dean of St 9ladimir‫އ‬s Seminary, New York. His publications include an edition and
translation of Origen‫އ‬sOn First Principlesand a study of the Gospel of John.

Sebastian P. Brockis Emeritus Reader in Syriac Studies, Oxford University. He has

written extensively on Syriac culture and edited many new texts, including theSeo
cond Part of ,saac of Nineveh‫އ‬s 'iscourses; his publications include the edition of
Peshitta: IsaiahandThe Luminous Eye: The Spiritual World Vision of St Ephrem.

Bogdan G. Bucur, St 9ladimir‫އ‬s Orthodox Theological Seminary, is the author ofAno

gelomorphic Pneumatology: Clement of Alexandria and Other Early Christian Wito
nesses(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 Unio

versity of Dayton in Ohio. He has lectured and published on ancient Jewish and Chriso
tian hermeneutics, asceticism, and mysticism.

Nikolaos ChatzinikolaouMetropolitan 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.

,oan ChirilÅis Professor at the Faculty of Orthodox Theology, Cluj-Napoca

(p. xiv)
(Romania), where he teaches Old Testament, biblical archeology, and Hebrew. He

was President of Babes-Bolyai University Senate and he published over twenty volo
umes and two hundred studies.

Simon Crispis affiliated to the Institute for Textual Scholarship and Electronic Edito
ing (University of Birmingham, UK). He is the former Coordinator for Scholarly Edio
tions with United Bible Societies. He has published widely in the areas of Bible transo
lation, hermeneutics, and textual criticism.

Athanasios Despotisis Extraordinary Professor at the University of Bonn. He is alo

so a Research Associate at the University of Bern and the University of Pretoria. His
most recent monograph isBekehrungserfahrung und Bekehrungserinnerung bei
Paulus und Johannes(Schöningh-Brill 2021).

Mary K. FaragAssistant Professor of Early Christian Studies at Princeton Theologio

cal Seminary, is a historian specializing in the period of late antiquity. She is the auo
thor ofWhat Makes a Church Sacred" Legal and Ritual Perspectives from Late AntiTo
uity.

John Fotopoulosis an associate professor in the Department of Religious Studies

and Theology at Saint Mary‫އ‬s 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 HambardzumyanArmenian 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 ofThe Book of Sirach in the Armenian Biblical
Tradition(De Gruyter, 2016).

Vahan Hovhanessianis 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. Humphreyis the William F. Orr New Testament Professor Emerita of Pittso
burgh Theological Seminary, co-chair for the International Orthodox Theological Aso
sociation (biblical section), and author of ten books tackling exegetical, literary, and
theological matters, including a forthcoming children‫އ‬s novel.

George A. Kirazis 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 Konstantinouis 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 includeThe Old Testament: 'eo
ciphering the Common Heritage of Mankind(Alexander Press, 2010).

Lee Martin McDonaldis President Emeritus, Acadia Divinity College and Past Dean
of Faculty of Theology at Acadia University, Professor of Biblical Studies, Past Presio
dent of Institute for Biblical Research, and author or editor of thirty-one books and
one-hundred-sixty-five articles.

Alexandru MihÅilÅUniversity of Bucharest (Faculty of the Orthodox Theoloo

(p. xv)
gy), teaches Old Testament and Biblical Hebrew. He participated in the translation of
Old Testament from Hebrew (3 volumes Genesis‫ށ‬Deuteronomy, Humanitas Press-
Bucharest) and New Testament (Byzantine text; Vatopedi Monastery, forthcoming).

Justin A. Mihocteaches 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-editedA Celebration of Living Theology
(Bloomsbury, 2014).

R. W. L. (Walter) Moberlyis Professor of Theology and Biblical Interpretation at

Durham University. His most recent books areThe Bible in a Disenchanted Age
(2018) andThe *od of the Old Testament: Encountering the Divine in Christian Scripo
ture(2020).

Bradley Nassifis co-editor ofThePhilokalia: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 ofThe Evano
gelical Theology of the Orthodox Church, foreword Andrew Louth.

Konstantin Nikolakopoulosis Dean of Department of Orthodox Theology, Ludwig-

Maximilian University, Munich (Germany), Professor of Orthodox Biblical Theology,
member ofStudiorum Novi Testamenti Societas, and editor of the journalOrthodox
Forumand the monograph seriesLehr- und Studienbücher Orthodoxe Theologie.

Daniel Olariuhas 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 Pappasis 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 Paulsonis Research Associate at the Institute for New Testament Textual
Research (INTF), University of Münster. His is a co-editor of theEditio Critica Maior
as well as the official list of Greek New Testament manuscripts, theKurzgefaßte
Liste.

Eugen J. Pentiucis 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, includingHearing
the Scriptures: Liturgical Exegesis of the Old Testament in Byzantine Orthodox

Hymnography(OUP, 2021).

Ashley M. Purpurais an Assistant Professor in the School of Interdisciplinary Studo

ies 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 Roddyis Professor of Old Testament at Creighton University and is affiliato

ed with the University of Bucharest. For twenty years he co-directed and supervised
archaeological (p. xvi) excavations at Bethsaida, and has published extensively at the
intersection of Bible and archaeology.

Anthony G. Roeberis Professor of Church History, St. Vladimir‫އ‬s Orthodox Theologo

ical 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. Seitzis Senior Research Professor of Biblical Interpretation,

Wycliffe College in the University of Toronto; his most recent publication isConvero
gences: Canon and Catholicity(Baylor University Press, 2020); his collected essays,
Prophecy and Canon, will appear shortly (Mohr Siebeck).

Brent A. Strawnis Professor of Old Testament and Professor of Law at Duke Univero
sity, Senior Fellow in the Center for the Study of Law and Religion at Emory Universio
ty, and an ordained elder in the United Methodist Church.

Theodore G. Stylianopoulosa Greek Orthodox priest, taught the New Testament

and Orthodox Spirituality at Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology during
1967‫ށ‬2008. His most recent works areThe Making of the New Testament(2014) and
The Apostolic Gospel(2015).

Hany N. Taklaholds 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 Torranceis the Archbishop Demetrios Associate Professor of Byzantine Theo

ology at the University of Notre Dame, and a priest of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
He recently publishedHuman Perfection in Byzantine Theology: Attaining the Fullo
ness of Christ(OUP).

Petros Vassiliadisis Emeritus Professor, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki; Direco

tor of Master Program of Orthodox Ecumenical Theology, International Hellenic Unio
versity; Honorary President of CEMES and WOCATI, translator of New Testament ino
to Modern Greek; and author of many books and articles.

Olivier-Thomas Venardis a Dominican priest and Professor of New Testament at

the cole Biblique et Arch«ologique Fran©aise in Jerusalem. His largest book in Engo
lish isA Poetic Christ: Thomist Reflections on Scripture, Language and Reality
(London: Bloomsbury, 2019).

James Buchanan Wallaceis Professor of Religion at Christian Brothers University.

He is the author ofSnatched into Paradise Cor :‫ ށ‬: Paul‫އ‬s Heavenly Journey
in the Context of Early Christian Experience(De Gruyter, 2011).

David A. Wilkinsonis Principal of St John‫އ‬s College and Professor in the Departo

ment of Theology of Religion in Durham University, United Kingdom. He is a Fellow
of the Royal Astronomical Society and an ordained Methodist minister.

The Bible in Orthodox Christianity: Balancing Tradition with Modernity
The Bible in Orthodox Christianity: Balancing Tradition

with Modernity
Eugen J. Pentiuc
Print Publication Date: Aug 2022 Subject: Religion, Literary and Textual Studies, Christianity
Online Publication Date: May 2022 DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190948658.013.1
Abstract and Keywords
This article synthesizes the salient themes of the current handbook. The four sections of
the article deal with matters that have an important impact on Orthodox biblical
hermeneutics. The first theme, the all-encompassing, life-like ‫ފ‬Tradition‫ ދ‬is treated in its
relationship with Scripture, whose centrality within the former has always been celebrato
ed. The second theme, biblical ‫ފ‬text,‫ ދ‬is described in its fluidity and pluriformity. The Oro
thodox church has never codified the Septuagint or any other textual witnesses as its auo
thoritative text. The third theme, ‫ފ‬canon,‫ ދ‬underlines the open-endedness of the Orthoo
dox biblical canon with its special section of anaginoskďmena ‫ފ‬readable [books].‫ ދ‬The
fourth theme, ‫ފ‬Orthodox hermeneutics,‫ ދ‬deals with the ongoing process of recontextualo
ization of Tradition by which Orthodox biblical scholars seek to strike a balance between
Tradition, especially patristic exegesis, and modern biblical approaches.
Keywords: recontextualization, Tradition, textual fluidity, open-ended canon, anaginoskďmena, modern biblical apo
proach, patristic exegesis
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 ‫ފ‬Tradition.‫ ދ‬In the opening scene of the 1964 Broado
way 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 isn‫އ‬t easy. <ou may ask, why do we stay
up there if it‫އ‬s so dangerous? We stay because Anatevka is our home‫ޔ‬. And how
do we keep our balance? That I can tell you in one word ‫ ޔ‬Tradition.
(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 eating‫ނ‬be 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.
Tradition: The Church‫އ‬s Life-Journey

(p. 2)
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 Oro
thodox, 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 life‫ނ‬the Church‫އ‬s life, that is, in its diversity and como
plexity. 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 codified‫ނ‬with 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 deo
posit of faith (Pentiuc 2014, 144).
How can one describe the content of Tradition or the Church‫އ‬s life? As is the case with
life, in general‫ނ‬we know what it is or, rather, we are aware of it, but we cannot analyze it
‫ނ‬the 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 ‫ފ‬observes‫ ދ‬or ‫ފ‬measures‫ ދ‬the 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 como
posite picture consisting of pixels, lines, and sections.
Nevertheless, for practical reasons, and due to the gradual codification process meno
tioned earlier, one may imagine the sacred Tradition as a wide circle, which can be divido
ed, 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
‫ފ‬Christ-event‫( ދ‬i.e., Jesus‫އ‬s irradiating and welcoming rich personality and ministry, como
prising his sayings, wonders, the passion with the cross, death, and entombment, folo
lowed by an empty tomb and some postresurrection appearances, all culminating with his
ascension to heaven). A summary of some of Jesus‫އ‬s salvific activities may be found listed
in one of the earliest recordings of the apostolickerygma‫ފ‬proclamation,‫ ދ‬namely, 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, folo
lowed by another, wider circle‫ނ‬that of the Old Testament Scriptures‫ނ‬that is heading for
the eschaton-horizon, the ultimate frontier of these concentric circles. Tradition is a ciro
cle that intersects or overlaps with the two-concentric circles along the pivot (i.e., Christ-
event). Thus pictured, Tradition is infused by Christ‫އ‬s 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 como
munity of faith would be able to do biblical work fully independent from the presupposio
tions‫ނ‬assumptions and guidelines‫ނ‬pertaining to their Tradition.
(p. 3)In one of my earlier publications (Pentiuc 2006b), I suggested a new model to visuo
alize the relation between Old and New Testaments. Instead of the classical Christian
‫ފ‬vertical‫ ދ‬paradigm with the Old Testament at the bottom (chronologically and hierarchio
cally speaking) and the New Testament on the top superseding the elder scriptural colleco
tion, thus inviting supersessionism (mainly rhetorical, and sometimes even behavioral), I
would rather propose a ‫ފ‬horizontal‫ ދ‬paradigm with two concentric circles: a narrow ciro
cle 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 overo
lapping 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 modo
el, 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 Church‫އ‬s life (Tradio
tion) heading toward the eschaton-horizon; the two testaments are on par as ‫ފ‬two sisters
and two maidens serving one Master‫( ދ‬Chrysostom).
This ‫ފ‬horizontal‫ ދ‬paradigm has the merit of underlining the Hebrew Bible‫އ‬s (Old Testao
ment) ongoing relevance for Jews, being their own Scripture, and for Christians, as cono
taining most of the messianic prophecies referring to Christ‫އ‬s firstparousiaand 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), fano
ning 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), patriso
tic writings (biblical commentaries, theological treatises), conciliar documents, desert fao
thers‫ އ‬sayings (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 otho
er words, the Church‫އ‬s 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 deeptraditional
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 ‫ފ‬Toward an Oro
thodox Hermeneutics‫)ދ‬.
The Centrality of Scripture within Tradition
Is Scripture generated bytraditionor does it generateTradition? (Bunta, in this volume).

Here one needs to distinguish between the two meanings of the term ‫ފ‬tradition.‫ ދ‬Tradio
tion, (p. 4) often capitalized, is understood as the Church‫އ‬s 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 Israel‫އ‬s trao
ditions 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 Scripture‫ށ‬Tradition 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 avatars‫ނ‬conciliar statements, writo
ings of church fathers, liturgy, iconography, ascetic teachings‫ނ‬functions as a guido
ing handout of the textbook. Following this analogy, one may note a certain como
plementarity or reciprocity. Handouts aim to summarize and explain the salient
points of a textbook. Similarly, Tradition, based on Scripture, complements the lato
ter by condensing and illuminating its content. Nevertheless, the handouts, howo
ever complete and clear they may appear, will never be able to exhaustively elucio
date all the angles of scriptural trove or provide an all-encompassing and self-sufo
ficient 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 deo
gree can stand by itself, the handouts always need the textbook as their irreo
ducible point of departure and reference.
(Pentiuc 2014, 165)

One may add here Gregory of Nyssa‫އ‬s exhortation, ‫ފ‬Let the inspired Scripture be our aro
biter (diaiteʱsatoʱ), and the sentence (pseʱphos) of truth will be given to those whose dogo
mas are found to agree with the divine words‫( ދ‬On the Holy Trinity, and of the Godhead of
the Holy Spirit: To Eustathius), which speaks volumes of the pervasive Orthodox view on
Scripture‫އ‬s centralitywithinTradition.
This is one of the tenets and guiding principles of Orthodox Christianity as a whole. Oro
thodox do not speak of a twofold deposit, ‫ފ‬ScriptureandTradition‫ ދ‬as ‫ފ‬two sources‫ ދ‬of dio
vine revelation (Roman Catholic view), neither do they discard the Tradition for a ‫ފ‬self-
sufficient‫ ދ‬Scripture (i.e.,sola Scriptura‫ނ‬Protestant 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 Church‫އ‬s body. Scripture is central to the Church‫އ‬s life or Tradition. It spreads
throughout all the sections of Tradition. Scripture iswithinTradition, here, there, and
everywhere, yet still remaining at the center of Tradition as a beacon of light and criterio
on 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 allegorisation‫ޔ‬.
In its canonical status, scripture occupies the primacy among the Church‫އ‬s tradio
tions‫ޔ‬. The Bible as the supreme record of revelation is the indisputable norm of
the Church‫އ‬s faith and practice‫ޔ‬. The neglect of the Bible and the silencing of its
prophetic witness are inimical to the Church‫އ‬s evangelical vibrancy and sense of
mission in the world‫ޔ‬. The Church in every generation is called to maintain the
primacy and centrality of the Bible in its life, always attentive, repentant and obeo
dient to God‫އ‬s word.
How has this living Tradition been transmitted throughout history? Who are the
‫ފ‬tradents‫ ދ‬of the Tradition? For Orthodox, the Church as a whole (i.e., laity and hio
(p. 5)
erarchy)‫ނ‬theconsensus ecclesiae‫ނ‬plays 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 (magisterium‫ނ‬the 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 ‫ފ‬people of God‫ނދ‬the whole church,
are the true tradents of Tradition. In Orthodoxy theconsensus ecclesiaeis viewed dio
achronically (apostolic succession of bishops [McGuckin 2008, 100]) and synchronically
(the work of the Holy Spirit renewed through Eucharisticepiclesis[Zizioulas 1985, 123‫ށ‬
142, 171‫ށ‬208]).
For Orthodox, Tradition, namely, the Church‫އ‬s life under the guidance of the Holy Spirit,
is the ideal hermeneutical environment for an integrative reading of Scripture. As
Florovsky (1972, 79‫ށ‬80) 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 faco
tor of Christian existence‫ޔ‬. It was not a fixed core or complex of binding proposio
tions, but rather an insight into the meaning and impact of the revelatory events,
of the revelation of the ‫ފ‬God who acts.‫ދ‬
Textual Fluidity and Pluriformity

Since the autographs or the authors‫ އ‬original manuscripts have been lost, what once were
called ‫ފ‬versions‫ ދ‬are now more accurately termed ‫ފ‬textual witnesses‫ ދ‬to the Scripture,
the Old and New Testaments.
As the name intimates, the ‫ފ‬textual witnesses‫ ދ‬are witnessing to a Scripture whose autoo
graphs are no longer extant, hence they all need to be treated equally just as they are‫ނ‬
mere witnesses. Only through quite laborious historical-critical work are they to be evaluo
ated 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 reo
spect to the Scripture. As proof, the Orthodox Church has never ‫ފ‬canonized‫ ދ‬or ‫ފ‬codified‫ދ‬
a certain textual witness as its official text, as has been the case with Jerome‫އ‬s translao
tion, the Vulgate (AD 390‫ށ‬405), which at the Council of Trent, on April 8, 1546, was reco
ognized as the authoritative version of the Roman Catholic Church ‫ފ‬in matters of faith
and morals.‫ ދ‬One 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 ‫ފ‬canonized‫ ދ‬Bible, 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 beentheBible of the
Church covering all its major phases beginning with the New Testament and apostolic peo
riod through (p. 6) the church fathers, ecumenical councils, and up to the present day.
Notably, the Septuagint was the Bible of the first millennium undivided Church. The dogo
matic 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 (Letter57), 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 aposo
tles. Expanding on the former reason, one may add that in the view of the church fathers,
the Septuagint was apraeparatio evangelicaby 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, noo
ticesHarl (1992, 33‫ށ‬42), the Septuagint became gradually ‫ފ‬un oeuvre autonom, d«tach«e
de son modªle,‫ ދ‬with no need to be related to the Masoretic text.
In spite of its long-lasting popularity in the Eastern Church, the Septuagint remains a texo
tual 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 Origen‫އ‬s
magnus opusHexapla(mid-third century AD). In this early Christian text-critical work,
the famous Alexandrian scholar seeks to revise, or more precisely, to improve the Septuo
agint text, by comparing it with the extant Hebrew pre-Masoretic text (exclusively consoo
nantal) 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 Origen‫އ‬s 4uinta was preserved
partially (Prophets and Writings) in the ninth-centuryCodex Ambrosianus Syrohexaplaris
in Milan. AsHengel (2004, 36) well pointed out, through Origen‫އ‬sHexapla‫ފ‬the church
was continually reminded that the LXX is only a translation that can never exceed the Heo
brew original in dignity, but must, rather, always succeed it.‫ދ‬
Second, the Septuagint‫އ‬s 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) translao
tion is preserved in three major uncial codices dating to the fourth‫ށ‬fifth century AD (Sio
naiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus) and many miniscule manuscripts dating to the
ninth through fifteenth centuries. Thus, one cannot speak oftheSeptuagint, a single,
easy-to-define textual entity.TheSeptuagint 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 Septuo
agint 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 (p. 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: ‫ފ‬Later Versions‫ފ ;ދ‬Hexaplaric Versions‫ފ ;ދ‬the Three
(translators),‫ ދ‬or simply, ‫ފ‬Aquila,‫ފ ދ‬Symmachus,‫ ދ‬and ‫ފ‬Theodotion‫;ދ‬Ho Hebraios(‫ފ‬The
Hebrew [translator]‫;)ދ‬To Hebraikon(‫ފ‬The Hebrew [translation]‫;)ދ‬Ho Syros(‫ފ‬The Syrian
[translator]‫ ;)ދ‬andTo Samaritikon(‫ފ‬The Samaritan [translation]‫( )ދ‬Marcos 2000, 10‫ށ‬11).
During the first millennium, the Eastern Christian Church used the Septuagint as a worko
ing text while not refuting altogether the Hebrew text. The reasons the Eastern Church
chose the Septuagint are not theological, but rather practical: ‫ފ‬As 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( ދ‬Konstantinou, 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)‫ނ‬the codified canon
law, by Nicodemus the Agiorite (1749‫ށ‬1809), mentions the Septuagint astheBible 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 (MihÅilÅ, in this volume).
The Peshitta
The Syriac translation (Peshitta, Syriac, ‫ފ‬simple, plain [translation]‫)ދ‬, based on the Heo
brew Bible, preserved in the sixth- to seventh-centuryCodex Ambrosianusof Milan, was
probably completed by the second century AD. The Peshitta needs to be distinguished
from the seventh-centurySyro-Hexapla, the Syriac translation based on the revised Sepo
tuagint, more precisely, Origen‫އ‬sQuinta. Was the older Peshitta done in a Jewish or Jewo
ish Christian community? ‫ފ‬While 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 tradio
tion but also closely connected with early Syriac Christianity. By the third and fourth ceno
turies, the transmission of the Peshitta was so strong that all later branches of the Syriac
church adopted it as their standard text‫( ދ‬Kiraz, in this volume).
One may add that the HebrewVorlageof the Peshitta is much closer to theVorlageof the
Masoretic text than to the Hebrew textual basis of the Septuagint. In a nutshell, the
Peshitta (p. 8) and Syro-Hexapla are examples of textual fluidity and pluriformity with reo
spect to the use of Scripture in the East, especially when one compares these textual wito
nesses to the biblical quotations in Syriac fathers such Ephrem the Syrian (d. AD 373)
and Aphraates (fourth century).
In addition to the ancient Ethiopian (Ge‫އ‬ez) 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 como
munities.
Ethiopian
The first translations of the Bible in classical Ethiopic language (Ge‫އ‬ez) 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, represento
ing the decline of the kingdom of Aksum. Revisions followed until the nineteenth century,
culminating with the textual standardization of the Ge‫އ‬ez Bible that became thetextus reo
ceptus. TheVorlageof the Ge‫އ‬ez Old Testament belongs to the Septuagint textual family
(i.e., uncial and miniscule manuscripts). Similar to Greek patristic interpreters, the
andƟmtacommentaries refer to other textual witnesses besides the Ge‫އ‬ez Old Testament,
such as ‫ފ‬the Samaritan Pentateuch,‫ފ ދ‬the Septuagint,‫ ދ‬and the Hebrew text (Abraha
2017). The effortless use of textual variants points to pluriformity of Scripture in the Oro
thodox Ethiopian Church.
Coptic
The term ‫ފ‬Coptic Bible‫ ދ‬is used [ ‫ ] ޔ‬to refer to the Coptic Language version of
the Greek Christian Scriptures that was universally accepted by the Orthodox
Church of Alexandria ‫ ޔ‬by 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 conservao
tive, showing a low degree of fluidity. ‫ފ‬One of the unique characteristics of the Armenian
translation of the Bible is that unlike many other versions, which have had a variety of ino
dependent (p. 9) retranslations over the years, the Armenian Bible has been passed down
through the centuries largely unchanged, reaching us in very few versions‫( ދ‬Hamo
bardzumyan, in this volume).
The Status of the Hebrew Text in Orthodox Christianity
Childs (1979, 89) raises an important question: ‫ފ‬Why should the Christian church be como
mitted 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?‫ދ‬
Surely, the Christian Church has never been committed to the Hebrew Bible. Nevertheo
less, 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 ‫ފ‬difficulties‫ ދ‬of 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 Heo
brew 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 (Konstantio
nou, in this volume). Reactions to this movement did not tarry. In 1848, theEncyclical of
the Eastern Patriarchsrefers to the Septuagint in categorical terms: ‫ފ‬Our 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( ދ‬MihÅilÅ, 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 Masoreto
ic Text (Pentiuc 2002;Pentiuc et al. 2017), which was a novelty in my native Romanian
Orthodox Church, and even later, when I publishedJesus 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 ‫ފ‬awe and revero
ence as two sisters‫( ދ‬Philo,Life of Moses2.40).
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-Ended Canon or Growing Scriptural Colo

lection?
The second section of this handbook covers various aspects of the biblical canon in Orthoo
dox Christianity.
Unlike the well-configured New Testament canon, except for the somehow convoo
(p. 10)
luted 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 ‫ފ‬outside‫ ދ‬books (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 ofkanonizomena‫ފ‬canonized‫ ދ‬or
‫ފ‬canonical‫ ދ‬books, beginning with late fourth century, the Greek nounkanďn‫ފ‬canon‫ދ‬
comes to designate the corpus or list of canonical (normative) books, as one may see in
Amphilochius of Iconium‫އ‬s gloss (about AD 380): ‫ފ‬This would be the most faultless canon
of the divinely inspired Scriptures (kanďn ‫ ޔ‬tďn theoneustďn Graphďn)‫( ދ‬Iambi ad Seleuo
cum319 [PG 37:1598]).
There is no ecumenical orpan-Orthodox(emphasis added) council in the East that deo

creed on the canonical status of these ‫ފ‬outside‫ ދ‬books. Athanasius of Alexandria, one of
the few ancient Eastern Orthodox ‫ފ‬authorities,‫ ދ‬in hisThirty-Ninth Festal Epistle, AD 367,
divides the books (biblia) that a Christian might encounter into three groups:kanonizomo
ena‫ފ‬canonized,‫ދ‬ou kanonizomena‫ފ‬noncanonized,‫ ދ‬andapokrypha‫ފ‬apocrypha.‫ ދ‬The Sepo
tuagint additions make up the second group, ‫ފ‬noncanonized‫ ދ‬or ‫ފ‬noncanonical,‫ ދ‬also
termedanaginďskomena, ‫ފ‬to be read, readable‫( ދ‬in public); in other words, the Septuo
agint 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 (‫ފ‬canonized‫ ދ‬and ‫ފ‬noncanonized‫ނދ‬anago
inďskomena‫ފ‬to be read, readable‫)ދ‬, Athanasius wisely distinguishes between the two
functions of Scripture, namely, ‫ފ‬informative‫ ދ‬and ‫ފ‬formative.‫ ދ‬On the one hand, he cono
siders the thirty-nine canonical (‫ފ‬canonized‫ )ދ‬books of the Jewish Bible ‫ފ‬fountains of salo
vation‫( ދ‬peʱgai tou soʱteʱriou), because ‫ފ‬only in these the doctrine of godliness (eusebeias
didaskaleion) is proclaimed‫ ;ދ‬hence, the ‫ފ‬canonized‫ ދ‬books exercise the informative funco
tion of Scripture. On the other hand, Athanasius remarks, ‫ފ‬there are other books outside
of these (hetera biblia toutoʱn exoʱthen) indeed noncanonized (ou kanonizomena), but preo
scribed by the fathers to be read (tetypoʱmena de para toʱn pateroʱn anaginoʱskesthai) by
those who newly join us, and who wish to be instructed in the word of godliness
(kateʱcheisthai ton teʱs eusebeias logon)‫ ;ދ‬hence, the ‫ފ‬noncanonized‫( ދ‬noncanonical) or
anaginďskomenaperform the ‫ފ‬formative‫ ދ‬function of Scripture. If in the fourth- to fifth-
century AD Septuagint uncial codices, whereanaginďskomenaintercalate with canonical
books, in Athanasius‫އ‬s list the two groups are separated from one another (Pentiuc 2014,
115‫ށ‬116).
Unlike Athanasius‫އ‬s favorable attitude toward theanaginďskomena, the Laodicea Council

(about AD 363), a local council, though an important ancient ‫ފ‬authority‫ ދ‬in 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 cono
text 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 ‫ފ‬outside‫ ދ‬books (i.e., the
Septuagint additions) at the end of the Old Testament (e.g., Luther‫އ‬s Bible of 1534), callo
ing them ‫ފ‬Apocrypha,‫ ދ‬that is, though not on par with the canonical books, they are useo
ful and good for reading.
(p. 11)This harsh attitude of the Reformers toward the Septuagint additions, made the
Roman Catholic Church adopt at the Council of Trent (1545‫ށ‬1563) a wider canon with
forty-six Old Testament books, including the Septuagint additions. The Tridentine decio
sion on the biblical canon was ratified at the First Vatican Council (1869‫ށ‬1870). The Easto
ern 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 ‫ފ‬confessions,‫ ދ‬while seeking to clarify
Athanasius‫އ‬s 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 ado
ditions, calledapokrypha, from the biblical canon. On the other hand, the Synod of
Jerusalem (1672), convened by Patriarch Dositheus Notaras of Jerusalem, and Dositheus‫އ‬s
confession (a response to Loukaris‫އ‬s 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, Meto
ropolitan 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 astheOrthodox offio
cial view, since they all were crafted under the pressure of theological polemics between
Protestants and Roman Catholics. Unlike Protestantism or Catholicism, where the numo
ber 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 Heo
brew Bible and ten Septuagint additions (anaginďskomena: 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 Testao
ment: Jubilees, Enoch, 2 Ezra, Ezra Sutuel, Tegsats, Metsihafe Tibeb, Joseph son of Beno
gorion; 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 ‫ފ‬Books of Church
Order‫( ދ‬Assefa, 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 Heo
brew Bible and the Septuagint additions. They ask whether the ‫ފ‬outside‫ ދ‬books should be
considered an extension of the third section of the Jewish Bible,Ketuvim‫ފ‬Writings,‫ ދ‬with
a ‫ފ‬formative purpose‫( ދ‬Pentiuc 2014, 107‫ށ‬109), or as a ‫ފ‬narrative complement‫ ދ‬to the
canonical books, e.g., Wisdom of Solomon as a complement-match to Proverbs (ChirilÅ, in
this volume).
The status of the ‫ފ‬outside‫ ދ‬books (i.e., not extant in the Jewish Bible) is still debated witho
in 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 uptheOrthodox 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 ‫ފ‬open-ended‫ ދ‬or a
‫ފ‬growing (p. 12) collection‫ ދ‬of scriptures, to use Ulrich‫އ‬s coinage: ‫ފ‬If the canon is by defio
nition 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 approprio
ate to speak of a growing collection of books considered as sacred scripture‫( ދ‬Ulrich
2002, 34).
In this context one may ask: Can the liturgical use of an ‫ފ‬outside‫ ދ‬book (Septuagint addio
tion) 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 (Vassilo
iadis, in this volume).
In Meyendorff‫އ‬s view, liturgical use cannot alone be a criterion of biblical canonicity:
In spite of the fact that Byzantine patristic and ecclesiastical tradition almost exo
clusively uses the Septuagint as the standard Biblical text and that parts of the
‫ފ‬longer‫ ދ‬canon especially Wisdom are of frequent liturgical use Byzantine theoloo
gians remain faithful to a ‫ފ‬Hebrew‫ ދ‬criterion for Old Testament literature, which
excludes texts originally composed in Greek. Modern Orthodox theology is consiso
tent with this unresolved polarity when it distinguishes between ‫ފ‬canonical‫ ދ‬and
‫ފ‬deuterocanonical‫ ދ‬literature of the Old Testament, applying the first term only to
the books of the ‫ފ‬shorter‫ ދ‬canon.
(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 Amphilochius‫އ‬s earlier quoted collocation, ‫ފ‬canon of the divinely inspired Scriptures
(kanďn ‫ ޔ‬tďn theoneustďn Graphďn).‫ ދ‬For Orthodox, ‫ފ‬the Scriptures are understood to be
theanthropic, so that divine inspiration and human illumination cohere
together‫( ދ‬Humphrey, in this volume). The Incarnation is the explanatory model of biblio
cal inspiration. As the divine nature coexists with the human nature in the person of
Christ, similarly God‫އ‬s word coexists with or is vested in human words, and this unique
symbiosis makes up the Scripture, which is ‫ފ‬a God inspired scheme or image (eikon) of
truth, but not truth itself‫ޔ‬. If we declare Scripture to be self-sufficient, we only expose it
to subjective, arbitrary interpretation, thus cutting it away from its sacred
source‫( ދ‬Florovsky 1972, 48).
I conclude this section with the insightful comments of Agouridis on the ‫ފ‬open-endedo
ness‫ ދ‬of the biblical canon in the Orthodox Church:
Holy Scripture is not law but ‫ފ‬witness,‫ ދ‬and its writers are not legislators but ‫ފ‬wito
nesses.‫ ދ‬If for instance an archaeological pickaxe were to uncover an authentic
epistle of Paul the Apostle, no one would imagine excluding it from the canon. Neio
ther 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 eno
riched 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
Scripture‫އ‬s centralitywithinTradition. The inseparableness of the two translates ino
eluctably into a ‫ފ‬traditional‫ ދ‬hermeneutics.
(p. 13) However, given the Orthodox understanding of Tradition, as the Church‫އ‬s life uno
der the guidance of the Holy Spirit toward the eschaton, the grand finale of time and hiso
tory, the attribute ‫ފ‬traditional‫ ދ‬needs 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 modero
nity. I term this process ‫ފ‬recontextualization of traditional hermeneutics.‫ ދ‬In 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
‫ފ‬conversation‫ ދ‬with various modern and post-modern approaches toward the use and ino
terpretation of Scripture. While aiming at its own configuration,theOrthodox hermeneuo
tics proves to be intrinsically conversationalist, open to a dynamic dialogue.
When I use ‫ފ‬traditional‫ ދ‬with reference to hermeneutics, I think primarily of ancient

Christian (‫ފ‬patristic‫ )ދ‬interpretations. As mentioned earlier, tradition consists of various
slices (sections), and one of them is the church fathers‫ އ‬writings that have had significant
and long-lasting relevance for Orthodox biblical hermeneutics. What follow are some exo
amples 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 hermeneutio
cal topics.
Traditional Hermeneutics and Modern Historical-Critical Approaches
Patristic exegesis is the traditional way through which Orthodox Christianity has read, ino
terpreted, and conveyed the sacred Scriptures throughout history. ‫ފ‬Patristic exegesis‫( ދ‬or
more accurately, ‫ފ‬interpretation‫ )ދ‬is a catchall phrase designating the church fathers‫ އ‬ino
terpretations 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 ‫ފ‬discursive‫ ދ‬mode of ino

terpretation (Pentiuc 2014, 169‫ށ‬198). The church fathers‫ އ‬biblical 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 ‫ފ‬liturgical
exegesis‫( ދ‬see what follows) that tends to be imagistic and intuitive, as the scriptural mao
terial, sometimes a mere word or phrase gleaned from the Old Greek version of the Scripo
ture, is interweaved in the poetical framework of liturgical hymns. In the case of liturgical
exegesis, an intricate web of mini intertextualities built within a hymn‫އ‬s 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 assumpo
tions: 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 meanings‫ނ‬e.g., literal sense, hiso
tory, allegory, typology,theoria, andanagoge‫ނ‬all corresponding to the medieval fourfold
sense of Scripture: historical or literal, allegorical or typological, tropological or moral,
and anagogic or eschatological. The interpreters‫ އ‬role is to detect and expose the hidden
senses (p. 14) 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 ‫ފ‬insights 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( ދ‬Torrance, 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 proo
cedures and foci. For instance, the ‫ފ‬exchange‫ ދ‬element with respect to God‫އ‬s covenant
with Israel, so poetically conveyed by Ephrem the Syrian: ‫ފ‬He gave us divinity, we gave
him humanity‫( ދ‬Hymns on Faith5:17), is probably the defining feature of Syriac patristic
exegesis. The interpretive act is asynergeia‫ފ‬cooperation‫ ދ‬between 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 ‫ފ‬weaving a textile garment‫ ދ‬with a pronounced transformative dio
mension: ‫ފ‬If there was any single purpose of reading, interpreting, and living by the meao
sure of the scriptures, it was to receive the divine light that allows one to see and particio
pate in the spiritual realm‫( ދ‬Farag, in this volume).
With respect to ancient Ethiopic patristic exegesis with its two distinctive systems of como
mentary,tƟrgwameandandƟmta, based respectfully on Ge‫އ‬ez 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 community‫އ‬s scriptural hermeneutics is foremost liturgical in cono
tent. 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 astheonly authorio
tative 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 ‫ފ‬neo-patristic synthesis‫ ދ‬in an attempt to ‫ފ‬sanitize‫ ދ‬Orthodox theology from Westo
ern influences through a rather decisive return to the church fathers: ‫ފ‬The 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( ދ‬Sylianopoulos, in this volume). Unfortunately, Forovsky‫އ‬s ‫ފ‬neo-
synthesis‫ ދ‬was 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 އ‬contribution to biblio
cal 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 އ‬interpretations, if not in dialogue, at least in a
state of complementarity with modern historical-critical approaches to the Bible.
The foremost feature of patristic exegesis is its predominantly Christological outo

(p. 15)
look. Each textual unit is part ofthewhole (Scripture) whosehypothesis(perspective) and

skopos(unifying purpose) is Christ, the climax of God‫އ‬s revelation and the hermeneutical
key in reading the Scripture as witness to the former. If ancient Jewish interpreters, folo
lowing themidrashicmethod, sought to analyze (Hebrew wordmidrashderives from the
rootd-r-ģ‫ފ‬to search, to investigate‫ )ދ‬the biblical text in detail, patristic interpreters were
rather interested in the big, full picture (skopos), namely,theScripture as a whole. I
might say, running the risk of oversimplifying, the ancient Jewish interpreters are the preo
cursors 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 proo
found 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 exo
celled themselves in identifying thematic and lexical intertextualities, hence the syno
chronic 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 frono
tier, 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 ‫ފ‬waves‫ ދ‬generated and sustained by the pivotal Christ-event.
In this synchronic, horizontal exegetical framework, we may be inclined to read the Scripo
ture ‫ފ‬from the end, looking forward,‫ ދ‬namely from the Cross perspective‫ނ‬Jesus‫އ‬s final
and perfect revelation as ‫ފ‬son of man‫ ދ‬and ‫ފ‬Son of God‫ނދ‬to the beginning of salvation
history, while looking with expectation toward the new age to come (Behr, in this volo
ume).
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 ‫ފ‬archeologists,‫ ދ‬digging 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 earo
liest 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 (Peno
tiuc 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 (p. 16) 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:
‫ފ‬God spoke once, I heard these two things‫( ދ‬hapax elalÕsen ho theos dyo tauta Õkousa)
(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 (Fotopouo
los, in this volume)? The ancient patristic assumption that Scripture was divinely ino
spired, hence the divine-human character of Scripture, requires that scriptural interpreo
tation be done in light of incarnational theology. If Christ as God‫އ‬s 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, ano
cient patristic and modern historical-critical, should be considered as equally beneficial.
Florovsky‫އ‬s (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 aso
pects 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 God‫އ‬s word and its textual icon (Scripture), both of which share an intertwining, eno
tanglement-like relationship.
The modern textualists in search of the original meaning of a particular text and the ano
cient 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, eio
ther human or divine, thus breaking the icon of truth. For this reason, striving for diao
logue or complementarity between ancient interpretations and modern biblical approacho
es should be a must for those who want to strike a balance between tradition and modero
nity.
Among the modern biblical disciplines, textual criticism, given its long-lasting Christian
practice beginning with Origen‫އ‬sHexapla, 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 biblio

cal scholars‫ އ‬engagement 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 anotho
er 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 modo
ern modes of interpretation, one may mention the Bible-theology-science and Christian-
Jewish ‫ފ‬conversations.‫ ދ‬Pertaining to the former, we are reminded of the Church‫އ‬s emo
phasis on moral theology as new scientific theories are continuously looming (p. 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 diao
logue 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., Taro
gumim, Midrashim, etc.) interpretations in complementarity with the church fathers‫އ‬
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 Eno
lightenment leading to the ‫ފ‬death of Scripture‫ ދ‬and emergence of the ‫ފ‬Bible‫ ދ‬as an acado
emic 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 apo
proach. Through an integrative reading of the Bible, and if I might add, through balanco
ing and bridging tradition with modernity, there is a ‫ފ‬possibility of knowledge becoming
wisdom in relation to an overall reading of the Bible‫( ދ‬Moberly, in this volume).
An integrative reading requires looking at Scripture simultaneously as a unity and divero

sity of constitutive literary units. To reach such a perspective, Tradition needs to be reo
contextualized by being complemented with modern historical-critical approaches focuso
ing 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 followo
ing 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 volo
ume).
Second, the liturgical recontextualization of Orthodox biblical hermeneutics is not a novo

elty. 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 proo
cedures used by hymnographers and iconographers in interpreting the Scriptures.
Unlike the patristic biblical commentaries that are linear, sequential, and analytical, lituro
gical interpretations are intuitive, imagistic and multidirectional. Although daring at first
sight, a comparison between liturgical exegesis and cubist art might prove helpful.
(p. 18)
Similar to a cubist painter who creatively mixes cubes and other geometrical and abstract
forms while using the ‫ފ‬collage technique‫ ދ‬to assist the beholders in reconstructing the reo
ality in their own ways, the hymnographer combines bits and pieces of scriptural material
while using hapax legomena and rare words or phrases as ‫ފ‬hermeneutical pointers‫ ދ‬to aso
sist 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 ‫ފ‬reader-centered‫ ދ‬approaches 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 spirio
tual needs. Current efforts by Orthodox clergy and scholars to amend the past shortcomo
ings in fostering biblical literacy among faithful are quite commendable (Pappas, in this
volume). In this teaching ministry with respect to Scripture, women‫ނ‬faithful and scholars
‫ނ‬hold 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. ‫ފ‬The written word of God becomes God‫އ‬s
transformative word in prayer, worship, study, preaching, and teaching‫( ދ‬Stylianopoulos,
in this volume). For this reason, Scripture should be not merely an appendix to but an eso
sential part of the daily prayer-life, as Jerome beautifully puts it: ‫ފ‬Do you pray? You speak
to the Bridegroom. Do you read [the Scripture]? He speaks to you‫( ދ‬Letters22.25).
There are daring voices today within the traditional landscape of Orthodox biblical
hermeneutics asking for free research done by ‫ފ‬well-trained biblical exegetes who are Oro
thodox but fully competent to engage in contemporary criticism‫ޔ‬. Orthodox scholars
must be able to pursue their academic research with complete freedom, even if their reo
sults do not conform to however local Church authorities interpret ‫ކ‬Orthodox teaching.‫ޔ އ‬
Other scholars‫ނ‬and indeed all the faithful interested in such issues‫ނ‬provide the neceso
sary community for evaluating individual judgment‫( ދ‬Wallace, 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 biblio
cal 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
‫ފ‬fear‫ ދ‬of 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 problemo
atic 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 ‫ފ‬tough‫ ދ‬texts, which ‫ފ‬emerge from difo
ficult circumstances (‫ކ‬rough times‫ )އ‬can offer helpful, even therapeutic approaches to
similarly hard scenarios of more recent vintage‫( ދ‬Strawn, 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.
References
Abraha, Tedros. 2017. ‫ފ‬The Biblical Canon of the Orthodoks T¦wa֮Ɵdo Church of Ethiopia
and Eritrea.‫ ދ‬InIl Canone Biblico Nelle Chiese Orientali, edited by Edward G. Farrugia
and Emidio Vergani, 95‫ށ‬122. Rome: Pontificio Instituto Orientale.
Agouridis, Savvas. 1972. ‫ފ‬Biblical Studies in Orthodox Theology.‫ދ‬GOTR17/1 (1972): 51‫ށ‬

62.
Baynes, Leslie A. 2010. ‫ފ‬The Canons of the New Testament.‫ ދ‬InThe Blackwell Companion
to the New Testament, edited by David E. Aune, 91‫ށ‬100. 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. ‫ފ‬Traduire la Septante en Français: Pourquoi et Comment?‫ ދ‬InLa

Langue de Japhet: Quinze Études sur la Septante et le Grec des Chrétiens, edited by Maro
guerite Harl, 33‫ށ‬42. Paris: Éditions du Cerf.
Hengel, Martin. 2004.The Septuagint as Christian Scripture: Its Prehistory and the Probo
lem 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. Haro
vard Semitic Studies 49. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Pentiuc, Eugen J. 2002.Long-Suffering Love: A Commentary on Hosea with Patristic Ano

notations. Holy Cross Orthodox Press.
Pentiuc, Eugen J. 2006a. ‫ފ‬Between Hebrew Bible and Old Testament: Synchronic and Dio
achronic Modes of Interpretation.‫ދ‬SVTQ50/4, 381‫ށ‬396.
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: Oxo
ford 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. ‫ފ‬Scripture and Tradition in the Church.‫ ދ‬InThe Camo
bridge Companion to Orthodox Christian Theology, edited by Mary M. Cunningham and
Elizabeth Theokritoff, 21‫ށ‬34. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ulrich, Eugene. 2002. ‫ފ‬The Notion and Definition of Canon.‫ ދ‬InThe Canon Debate, edited
by Lee Martin McDonald and James A. Sanders, 21‫ށ‬36. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.
Zizioulas, John D. 1985.Being as Communion. Contemporary Greek Theologians 4. Cresto

wood, NY: St. Vladimir‫އ‬s Seminary Press.
Eugen J. Pentiuc
Eugen J. Pentiuc is the Archbishop Demetrios Professor of Biblical Studies and Chriso
tian Origins and Professor of Old Testament and Semitic Languages, Holy Cross
Greek Orthodox School of Theology, and author of six monographs, includingHearing
the Scriptures: Liturgical Exegesis of the Old Testament in Byzantine Orthodox
Hymnography(OUP, 2021).
The Place of the Hebrew Old Testament Text in the Eastern Church
The Place of the Hebrew Old Testament Text in the

Eastern Church
Miltiadis Konstantinou
Print Publication Date: Aug 2022 Subject: Religion, Literary and Textual Studies, Christianity
Online Publication Date: May 2022 DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190948658.013.15
Abstract and Keywords
As is well known, the Eastern Church since its birth has used as Old Testament text basio
cally 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 Testao
ment. The reasons that led the Church to the adoption of the Septuagint text were not
theological but practical. Even the Jews used the Greek language in their worship until
the tenth century. The key question in this case, then, is not whether the Church used the
Hebrew text of the Jewish Bible in its Scripture interpretation, but how the Church incoro
porated the Synagogue Bible into its own Christian Bible. The Church during its first milo
lennium, did not tie itself to a specific textual tradition of the Old Testament, nor did it
ever reject the original Hebrew text. 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 discuso
sions that were going on in the West. The views which were formulated in that period,
even the synodical resolutions, were fueled by the confrontation of Catholicism with
Protestantism. Therefore, to the extent that nothing today compels the Orthodox Church
to favor a text of a particular form, there is a need for a completely new and sober hano
dling of the problem with purely scientific criteria, but also with a sense of responsibility.
Keywords: Old Testament text, Septuagint, Masoretic text, Bible translation, Orthodox Church, Christian canon
Introduction
ON the September 29, 2018, in Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin, Armenia, a Memorano
dum of Understanding and Collaboration between the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Orio
ental Orthodox Churches, and the United Bible Societies was formally signed.1 As explico
itly stated in this memorandum, ‫ފ‬For the Eastern Orthodox Church and Oriental Orthoo
dox 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.‫ ދ‬Both paro
ties ‫ފ‬are committed through mutual support and close collaboration ‫ ޔ‬to develop Bible
translations and editions which are appropriate for Eastern and Oriental Orthodox audio
ences, as detailed in theUBS Guidelines for Scripture Translation(2004).‫ދ‬
The Old Testament Text during the First

(p. 24)
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 basio
cally 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 Testao
ment.
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 witho
out 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 falo
sification 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.2The 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 beo
tween the Jewish and Christian understanding of a passage is Isa 7:14, where the Hebrew
word ‫?ފ‬I+G#M*‫ކ( ދ‬almah) is rendered by the LXX with the word̸̵̷̩̹̰̥̺( ‫ފ‬virgin‫ނ)ދ‬giving
the Christian the possibility to sow here a prophecy of the virgin birth of Christ‫ނ‬instead
of (p. 25) the more appropriate worḓ̵̵̤̱̺( ‫ފ‬girl‫)ދ‬. 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 develo
opment. 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 creo
ation 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 Syo
nagogue 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 ‫ފ‬The Old Testament,‫ ދ‬was the Holy Bible of both Jesus and his
Apostles. According to the ‫ފ‬account‫ ދ‬of the evangelist Luke, when Jesus appeared in pubo
lic for the first time in the Synagogue of his village, Nazareth (Luke 4:16‫ށ‬21), 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: ‫ފ‬What you have just heard me read has come true today‫( ދ‬Luke 4:21 CEV).
The same evangelist narrates that later, when someone asks Jesus about how to gain etero
nal life (Luke 10:25‫ށ‬27), Jesus refer his interlocutor to two passages, from Deuteronomy
(6:5) and Leviticus (19:18) respectively: ‫ފ‬The Scriptures say, ‫ކ‬Love the Lord your God
with all your heart, soul, strength, and mind.‫ އ‬They also say, ‫ކ‬Love your neighbors as
much as you love yourself‫( ދݷއ‬Luke 10:27 CEV). And at the end of Luke‫އ‬s Gospel, there is
the description of an encounter between the risen Jesus and two of his disciples (Luke
24:13-‫ށ‬27), during which ‫ފ‬Jesus explained everything written about himself in the Scripo
tures, beginning with the Law of Moses and the Books of the Prophets‫( ދ‬Luke 24:27
CEV); and later, in another meeting with his disciples, ‫ފ‬Jesus said to them, ‫ކ‬While 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.‫ އ‬Then he helped them understand the
Scriptures‫( ދ‬Luke 24:44‫ށ‬45 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 emo
phasize the importance of the Law. In consequence, the books that make up the collection
of the Law rank first in the Synagogue‫އ‬s canon. The law is immediately followed by the
corpus of ‫ފ‬Prophets.‫ ދ‬In the first book of this section, the book of Joshua, God is presento
ed as giving Moses‫އ‬s successor the following commandment right from the start: ‫ފ‬Be
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( ދ‬Josh 1:7‫ށ‬8
CEV). The last book of the corpus, Malachi, ends with a similar command: ‫ފ‬Don‫އ‬t ever foro
get the laws and teachings I gave my servant Moses on Mount Sinai‫( ދ‬Mal 3:22 [4:4]
CEV). So, the second collection (p. 26) 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 reo
peated in the third corpus. The ‫ފ‬Writings‫ ދ‬start with the book of Psalms, in the first of
which the people who ‫ފ‬find happiness in the Teaching of the Lord, and they think about it
day and night‫( ދ‬Ps 1:2 CEV) are blessed. Similarly, the last books of the corpus, Chronio
cles, 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 ‫ފ‬Historical Books.‫ ދ‬In this grouping, all the biblical
writings that are narrative in character are arranged according to the chronological oro
der 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 huo
manity to receive the salvation that Jesus Christ will bring. The Law now loses its central
importance and becomes a ‫ފ‬tutor until Christ came‫( ދ‬Gal 3:24).
The second corpus of scriptural writings in the Christian canon comprises the books that
are poetic and didactic in character. In the ‫ފ‬Poetic Books‫ ދ‬the 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 ‫ފ‬Didactic Books,‫ ދ‬on 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 ‫ފ‬sits by the throne‫ ދ‬of God (Ws 9:4) precedes time and creation
(Pro 8:22‫ށ‬31) and ‫ފ‬is a breath of the power of God and an emanation of the pure glory of
the Almighty ‫ ޔ‬a reflection of eternal light and a spotless mirror of the activity of God
and an image of his goodness (Ws 7:25‫ށ‬26 NETS).
Finally, the Eastern Christian canon concludes with the ‫ފ‬Prophetic Books.‫ ދ‬The 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 ends‫ނ‬according
to the classification of the works in the editions that follow the Orthodox tradition‫ނ‬with
the book of Daniel, in which the resurrection of the dead is proclaimed (Dan 12:1‫ށ‬3) and
the figure of the ‫ފ‬Son of the Man‫ ދ‬is described through a magnificent vision as ‫ފ‬coming
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( ދ‬Dan 7:13‫ށ‬
14 CEV). Precisely this same title, ‫ފ‬Son of Man,‫ ދ‬will 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 involve‫ނ‬something 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 (p. 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 suffio
cient knowledge of Hebrew.3John 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.4Much later, during the ninth centuo
ry, Patriarch Photius returned to the subject in question and enumerated ten shortcomo
ings 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 Septuo
agint. 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 tao
bles the recording of the alphabet is done by the teaching method of the time, namely,
memorization‫ނ‬a 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 probo
lems arising from misinterpreted passages of the Septuagint text. Procopius of Gaza (AD
465‫ށ‬527),7when translating Isa 9:6 (‫ފ‬and his name will be called ‫ކ‬Wonderful Counsellor,
Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace‫)ދݷއ‬, quotes the various translations of the
passage from the ancient translators Symmachus, Aquila, and Theodotion. It is interesto
ing that Procopius not only cited the various translations of the passage but also attempto
ed to interpret them. Thus, he attributed the omission of the name of God by the three lato
ter translators to psychological reasons: ‫ފ‬They were awed to place the name of God to a
born child.‫ ދ‬He 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
word‫އ‬elis rendered by ‫ފ‬God,‫ ދ‬he reached the conclusion that the Septuagint translators
were correct in translating‫އ‬el giboras ‫ފ‬Mighty God.‫ދ‬8The 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
185‫ށ‬254) and Eusebius (AD 265‫ށ‬340), 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, theHexao
pla, while Eusebius considered them as divinely inspired as that of the LXX and their
study necessary (p. 28) to clarify what the LXX left obscure. As he characteristically
states, ‫ފ‬If somewhere it is necessary, we do not refrain from the versions of the newer ino
terpreters that were made after it [i.e., the LXX] and which the Jews prefer to use, in oro
der to present the truth in a safer way from all sides.‫ދ‬9
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 discuso
sions about the text of the books of the Old Testament. Moreover, a millennium of Chriso
tianity was long enough for the consolidation of local traditions. The issue of the Old Teso
tament 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 authoritao
tive one and, therefore, to adopt the narrow Jewish canon. The books not included in this
canon but endorsed by the Western Church were labeled ‫ފ‬apocrypha,‫ ދ‬and the rest
‫ފ‬pseudepigrapha.‫ ދ‬In spite of this development and notwithstanding the deprecatory lao
bel ‫ފ‬apocrypha,‫ ދ‬Lutheran 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 oppoo
site end of the spectrum, other protestant traditions, such as the Calvinists and the Purio
tans of Scotland, took a more rigid stance, something that led to the famous ‫ފ‬apocrypha
controversy‫ ދ‬within 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 (1545‫ށ‬1563) in its decreeSacrosanco
taof 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 ‫ފ‬canonical‫ ދ‬and the rest were designated
‫ފ‬deuterocanonical,‫ ދ‬having equal authority with the former. The First Vatican Synod
(1869‫ށ‬1870) ratified this decision, thereby definitively concluding this issue for the Roo
man Catholic Church.
In the Orthodox Church the matter of Old Testament text was raised again, not as an ino
ternal 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,10and many Orthodox theologians
were influenced by that trend. Thus, one may observe the phenomenon of Orthodox theo
ologians turning against Roman Catholicism using arguments that reveal protestant
influence, or vice versa: they turned against Protestantism using doctrinal posio
(p. 29)
tions colored by Catholicism. As representatives of this practice, Metrophanes Critopouo

los, patriarch of Alexandria; Cyril Lucaris, patriarch of Constantinople; and Dositheus, pao
triarch 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 Jeo
suits, an event which led to the formation of the first Uniatic Church (Synod of Brest
1596).11In this struggle Cyril Lucaris requested support from Protestant communities in
Poland. Later on, Lucaris, as patriarch of Alexandria (1602‫ށ‬1622), sent Metrophanes
Critopoulos (who later succeeded him as patriarch) to England, Germany, and Switzero
land, mainly to study Protestant theology and church policy. Protestant influence on the
theology of Metrophanes Critopoulos is apparent in hisConfession of Faith,12which he
compiled in 1625 and by which he tried to enlighten Protestants about the content of Oro
thodox faith and, especially, to ally with them against Roman Catholics.
Four years later, in 1629, Cyril Lucaris, as patriarch of Constantinople, published in Geneo
va his ownConfession 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 Proteso
tantism were held.13
In addition to synodical resolutions, Lucaris‫އ‬s 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 pao
triarch defended the doctrine of transubstantiation, the teaching concerning the satisfaco
tion 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 fuo
eled 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. Alo
though 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.15The same approach was followed by the Russian ecclesiastical authorio
ties 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 (p. 30)
majority, begin, following the effects of the Enlightenment, to formulate a specific percepo
tion 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 instio
tutions such as the Church.
Adamantios Koraes, one of the most prominent representatives of the neo-Hellenic Eno
lightenment, 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 Oto
toman 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 imporo
tant. 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 Helo
lenic 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 (1787‫ށ‬1863), professor of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, and
the archimandrite Filaret Drozdov (1783‫ށ‬1867) translated for the first time the Old Testao
ment 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.16But the whole effort did not last long, because in 1826 the Russian Bible Soo
ciety 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 cano
not 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.17The establishment of the new Greek state (and alo
most all the Balkan states after the fall of Ottoman Empire) was founded on the principles
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
[Goes to writing-table, and
writes. After writing a
page, he blots it on
blotter and turns over
and writes on second
sheet.
Dennis. If it works I don’t go back to the city by a long sight. The

governor may go it alone till I have seen the fun.
George (rising and imitating English accent and using his watch
as an eye-glass). I say, Steve, cawnt he make the heavy English
noticeable?
Dennis. Yes; tell him to come out strong on that.
George. And remember he’s in the hands of an oculist, doncher
know. That will be a good excuse for goggles.
Dennis. Tell him we’ll share the expense if he will only come.
Steven. What was his third name?
George. George Augustus Guelph Dunstan—otherwise Dust-pan.
Dennis. When is an earl a small thing?
George (with disgust). He never is, when he’s in this country.
Dennis. You never could guess a conundrum!
George. Give it up, old man.
Dennis. When he’s a little early.
George. Hurry up, Steve. Dennis is in sad need of dinner.
Steven (reading letter). How’s this?
“Dear Frank,—We hear you are to come up here on Tuesday. Now,

if you want a soft thing pay heed to what I write. We expect a howling
English Lord up here the last of the week, and the girls are going to
lay themselves out for his benefit, just to spite us poor republicans.
Put on goggles, a beard and wig; get a big pattern suit and a leather
hat-box, and telegraph Mrs. Wycherly (in the name of Ferrol), that
you will arrive on the 5.15 train Tuesday. You will be met, coddled,
caressed, etc. etc., till we shall all call you tenderfoot. But a word in
your ear! Make yourself rather disagreeable. Dress in the wrong
clothes at meals. Use the words ‘nasty’ and ‘beastly’ frequently, and
of all things meet the girls more than half-way in their attentions.
Your name is George Augustus Guelph Dunstan, Earl of Ferrol and
Staunton. Your papa is the Marquess of D-a-c-h-a-n-t (pronounced
Jaunt). Your dear mama is no more. You have been in Florida, where
you hurt your eyes, and are just from Washington—‘a beastly bore,
you know.’ I would give untold gold if I could do it instead of you.
“Always yours, Steve.”
Dennis. I say, boys, we must have a kodak ready for the unveiling,
and catch the girls’ faces on the fly.
George } (together, shaking hands and

Steven } laughing heartily). Oh! won’t
Dennis } it be rich!
Enter Rose, r. d.
Rose (crossing up stage to r.). Why, you wretched boys, haven’t
you gone up yet?
[Men jump and turn with

consternation.
Steven (concealing letter behind him). Why—ah—is it late?

Enter Helen, r. d., and crosses to tea-table, which she draws back
to l.
Rose. Late! You’ve just ten minutes to dress. Be quick! Mrs.
Wycherly has been stopped in the hall by a telegram, and if she
catches you here you’ll never hear the last of it.
[Men exit hurriedly and

awkwardly l. d.
Helen. Talk of the tardiness of women!

Rose. I know they’ve been talking about us. Did you see how guilty
they looked?
[Crosses to desk.
Enter Amy, r. d.
Amy. After what Mrs. Wycherly said of tardiness, they ought to
look guilty.
Rose (seating herself at desk and arranging pens, etc.). If they are
not late, it’s Seymour’s fault, not theirs.
Helen. I hope mama won’t wait for them. I have a good mind to tell
Seymour to put a lump of ice in the soup.
Amy. I should rather see those good for nothing, gossiping, over-
spoiled men there.
[Rose begins to study blotter

with great interest.
Helen. They deserve some kind of penance for their behaviour this
afternoon.
Amy. Yes, even in addition to our intended neglect when Lord
Ferrol arrives.
Helen. Oh, we can make it a capital joke, and if Lord Ferrol is only
nice we can have both the joke and a good time.
Amy. Well, I don’t care what Lord Ferrol is; I am going to use him
to punish—them.
Helen. Oh! Amy, why that significant pause? We all know how
them spells his name.
Rose (springing to her feet with a scream). Girls! Girls!!
Amy (startled). What’s the matter?
Rose (melodramatically). My Lords! My Lords! There are traitors
in the camp and treachery stalks rampant.
[Comes to centre with blotter.
Helen. Oh, come off that roof!

Rose. No, really, I’m in dead earnest.
Amy. What is it, Rose?
Rose (evidently reading with difficulty from blotter). Listen.
“Dear Frank,—We hear you are to come up here on Tuesday. Now, if
you want a soft thing, pay heed to what I write—” Oh, I can’t read it
backwards. Where is a mirror?
Helen (rushing to mantel). Here, Here.
[Holds mirror in front of

blotter.
Rose (reading). “We are expecting a howling English Lord up here

the last of the week, and the girls are going to lay themselves out for
his benefit.”
Helen } (with intense anger). What!!!

Amy }
Rose (reading). “Just to spite us poor republicans. Put on goggles,
a beard and wig; get a big pattern suit and a leather hat-box.
Telegraph Mrs. Wycherly (in the name of Ferrol) that you will arrive
on the 5.15 train Tuesday. You will be met, coddled, CARESSED!!
[Drops blotter in rage.
Amy (shrieking). Oh!

Helen (intensely). What!! (Grabs at blotter eagerly.) Here, you
read too slowly, let me. (Amy holds mirror.) “Coddled, caressed, till
we shall call you tenderfoot. But a word in your ear! Make yourself
rather disagreeable. Dress in the wrong clothes at meals. Use the
words ‘nasty’ and ‘beastly’ frequently, and of all things meet the girls
half-way in their attentions. Your name is George Augustus—” It
ends there.
[Girls look at each other

indignantly.
Amy (dangerously). It was about time!
[Going to the mantel and

replacing mirror.
Helen. What shall we do?
Amy.
“And he said can this be?
We are ruined by Chinese cheap labour (pause)
We will go for them heathen Chinee.”
Helen (turning). Yes!—but how?

Amy. Girls, put on your thinking-caps, and hunt for some terrible
punishment.
Rose. Something “lingering, with boiling oil or melted lead.”
Enter Mrs. W. r. d., with telegraph blank in hand.
Mrs. W. Why, girls, what were those shrieks about?
Rose (with embarrassment). Oh, nothing, Mrs. Wycherly. That is
—
Amy. I hope we didn’t frighten you, Mrs. Wycherly.
Mrs. W. Oh, no! I was only coming in to speak to Helen. (Helen
comes to centre.) I have just received a despatch from Frank Parker.
He has been called back to San Diego by the illness of his mother, so
we shall not have his visit after all. (Hands telegram to Helen and
sits at desk r. Rose sits at desk l. Helen and Amy cross to r. and
evidently consult over telegram.) I really am very sorry, for I wanted
to renew with the son a very old family friendship, but there is no
chance, for he has gone West already.
Helen (crossing to Mrs. W. and pleading). Oh, mama! Will you
not keep it a secret from the boys? Only George and Steven would
care, and we have a really good reason for not wanting them to know.
Oh, please, mama!
[Puts arms round Mrs. W.’s

neck.
Amy (beseechingly). Oh, Mrs. Wycherly, please do!

Rose (kneeling imploringly). Do, Mrs. Wycherly!
Mrs. W. (suspiciously). What mischief are you concocting now?
(rising and going to l. d., followed by all the girls). Well, I won’t
promise not to, but I will hold my tongue till I see that I had better
speak.
Helen. Oh, you dear mama!
Mrs. W. (laughing). Temper your justice with mercy.
[Exits l. d.
Helen (melodramatically coming down c.). Who talks to me of
justice and mercy!
Rose. Helen, can’t you arrange to have Burgess drive over to that
5.15 train? It would be so lovely to see the men’s faces when the
carriage came back empty.
Amy. Gracious! If we only could get the real Ferrol here, in place of
the fictitious, and yet make the men think it was Mr. Parker.
Rose. But Lord Ferrol won’t be here till Friday, and by that time
the boys will have either found it out, or suspect from the time that it
really is the genuine article.
Amy. I’ll tell you what to do. Let me wire my cousin Jack Williams
to get himself up as an Englishman, and come up here on Tuesday. I
can coach him so that he can pass himself off for Mr. Parker, and the
two are enough alike, judging from the description, if disguised, to
fool the boys.
Helen. But the moment they were alone with him they would find
—
Rose (interrupting). We’ll arrange it so that until we are ready for
developments, they shall have no chance to find out.
Rose. But how about Mrs. Wycherly? She knows Mr. Williams,
doesn’t she?
Amy. We’ll let her into the secret—she’ll enjoy it as much as any of
us.
Helen. And she’s always wanted to have your cousin here.
Rose. Quick, Amy. Write the telegram.
[All rush to desk. Amy sits in

chair l.
Helen. Mercy! but you’ll ruin yourself with such a one.

Rose. We’ll have to share the expense.
Amy (getting paper and pencil). No, I shall only send a short
despatch, and write full particulars by letter. Let me see—(Aloud.)
“Come up here disguised as an Englishman—goggles, beard, wig,
loud clothes—”
Rose. And hat-box.
Amy. “And hat-box, by the train that gets here?—”
[Looks at Helen inquiringly.
Helen. Five fifteen.
Amy. “That gets here at 5.15 Tuesday. Wire Mrs. Wycherly in name
of Ferrol that you will be here at that time. Further particulars by
post, but don’t fail.—Amy.”
[Rises and folds telegram.
Rose. If he will only come! Think of those boys watching our
attention to him, and laughing in their sleeves.
Rose. And we all the time laughing at them.
Helen. And think of their faces when the discovery is made!
Rose. Oh, Helen! You must have your camera ready, and take them
at that moment.
[All laugh.
Curtain
ACT II
Scene.—Same room, and same arrangement, except that tea-

table is up back to r., and the easy-chair l. is down centre. Mrs.
W. sits chair c. sewing. Rose sits on arm of easy-chair r. Amy
walking up and down at back. Helen sits chair r. of fireplace.
Amy (restlessly). I am so excited I can’t keep still. If Jack hadn’t
telegraphed when he did, I could never have survived the nervous
strain—but weren’t the men’s faces lovely when you read the
despatch at luncheon! Sly dogs!
Helen. I hope it will take the boys so long to clear the snow off
Silverspoon that we can have your cousin alone for a few minutes.
Rose. No such luck as that! Our evening’s skating will hardly weigh
with them, compared to the danger of our greeting the supposed Mr.
Parker without their moral support to carry him through.
Helen. I almost wish it were Mr. Parker instead of Mr. Williams
who is coming. How we could torture them all by awkward
questions!
Rose. I don’t think I ever appreciated before how deliciously the
Indian must feel when he takes his enemy’s scalp.
Mrs. W. Why, you blood-thirsty little wretch!
Helen. Mama, we must make our arrangements so that they will
have no chance to interview him this evening. Then, to-morrow, we
will either fully coach him, or let them find out the trick—according
to our wishes.
Mrs. W. Let me see,—I will meet him at the front door; the
moment the carriage drives up—
Helen. Yes, and you must bring him in here to tea. We won’t let
him go till the bell rings for dressing. Then we will all see him
upstairs.
Mrs. W. But you can’t watch him after he is once in his room, and
any of the men can go to him.
Rose. “Not if the court understand himself, and he thinks he do.”
We will spell each other, so that one of us shall sit in the upper hall
till Mr. Williams comes downstairs. The boys would never dare to
run such a battery without a better excuse than they can invent for
going to the room of an entire stranger.
Mrs. W. That makes it safe till we leave them to their cigars.
Helen (coming down, and sitting on the arm of Mrs. W.’s chair).
Mama, you will have to tell the boys that for a particular reason,
cause unspecified, you want to let the servants clear the dining-room
early, so as to set them free. Tell them to smoke in the library; we will
sit with them and put up with the smoke for once.
Rose. That will do, and you must break up the party at our usual
bed-time with the excuse that Lord Ferrol, after his journey, will
want to retire early. Take no denial, and we will escort him upstairs.
Then we girls will sit on the divan in the hall and gossip till we feel
sure that all is safe.
Amy. And we’ll write a note making an early appointment with
him in the valley summer-house; and then—(Sounds of laughter
outside.) Hush!
Enter George, Steven, and Dennis, r. d., and cross over to
fireplace, where they stand and warm their hands.
Mrs. W. Ah, what a breath of winter freshness you bring in with
you!
Steven. It is a simply glorious afternoon. How you girls could stay
indoors and roast over a fire is a puzzle to me!
Dennis. You forget, Steve, that telegram which came at luncheon.
They were afraid they might lose a few moments of his society!
George. If his ludship isn’t afraid of a little frost, we will show him
how to spend an evening on the ice.
Dennis. I’ll bet a box of chocolates that he doesn’t know how to
skate. (Aside to men.) They don’t have ice in Southern California.
Amy. Ten pounds and taken. (Aside to girls.) Jack is a superb
skater!
Steven. Two to one that Dennis wins.
Rose. I suppose you think you are betting on a certainty, so I shall
take you up, just to make you feel ashamed when I lose.
Steven. Mrs. Wycherly, can’t we have our tea without waiting for
his giblets? I am simply famished!
Helen (crossing to l.). I wonder if men ever really think of anything
besides eating.
George. If you think that clearing the drifts off that lake is a light
and ornamental position under the government, try it.
Mrs. W. (rising and reseating herself at desk chair r.). Well,
Helen, you may make it now, only save a cup for Lord Ferrol.
[George pulls easy-chair c.

back to r., while Dennis
and Steven bring tea-
table to former position
by chair. Rose exits l. d.
Helen (coming to tea-table and holding cup up). Lord Ferrol’s

cup.
Steven. Oh, no!
Dennis. Never!
[They try to obtain possession

of it.
Helen (going round table and sitting, still holding cup). Not for
you.
Enter Rose with hot water pot. Men return to fireplace. Amy sits
easy-chair l. of tea-table.
Rose (rubbing teapot against Dennis’s hand as she passes). Hot
water.
Dennis (jumping and looking at his hand). Not the least doubt of
it.
Helen. Make the most of it, boys: it’s the last time our tea will be
sweet to you!
Dennis. Why is Helen like a “P. & O.” steamer?
Helen (indignantly). I’m not!
Steven. Because she’s steaming the tea?
Dennis. No.
Amy. Don’t keep us in suspense.
Steven. Because she’s full of tease.
George. You make me tired.
Steven. Is that why you sat down so often on the ice?
Helen. Isn’t that just like George,—sitting round, while the rest do
the work.
George. If you think there’s any particular pleasure in sitting in a
snowdrift, there’s one outside, right against the verandah.
Steven. That would never do at present. It might result in a cold,
and so destroy our little plan of winning the maiden affections of—
well, I won’t give him a name till I have seen him!
Helen. It is hard to put up with foreign titles, but as long as our
government will not protect that industry, the home product is so
rude, boorish, VULGAR, and YOUNG, that we cannot help—
Rose (interrupting). Listen! (Pause.) There’s the carriage.
[All rise and start toward r.

door.
Mrs. W. (rising and intercepting them at door). Now, don’t all

come running out to frighten the poor man. (Men return to
fireplace; girls reseat themselves.) Let his first greeting be with me,
and then I will bring him in and let him see you and get a cup of tea.
[Exit r.
Dennis (stalking down stage).
Fe, Fo, Fi, Fum,
I smell the blood of an Englishman;
Be he alive, or be he dead,
I’ll grind his bones to make me bread.
Rose (pointing at Dennis).

Ping Wing, the pieman’s son,
Was the very worst boy in all Canton,
He stole his mother’s—
Mrs. W. (outside). No, I’m sure—

Enter Mrs. W. and Lord F. (in goggles and wig) r. d. and come
down c.
Mrs. W. You are chilled by your ride, so you must have a cup of tea
before going to your room. Helen, this is Lord Ferrol. My daughter,
Miss Wycherly, Miss Newcome, Miss Sherman, Lord Ferrol—.
Lord F. (bowing). Charmed, I assure you!
Mrs. W. My nephews, Mr. George and Steven Harold, and Mr.
Grant. There! the formidable host is reviewed, and you can now
make yourself as comfortable as possible.
Lord F. Er, thanks, but if you will allow me, I will go to my room
first,—I am so filthy.
Mrs. W. Oh, but you really must have tea first.
Lord F. You’re awfully good, I’m sure. Er, will you pardon my
glasses, but I burned my eyes shooting alligators, and, er! that was
why I couldn’t make a more positive date, for I was in the hands of an
oculist.
Amy (aside). Oh! Jack, what a lie!
Steven (aside). Didn’t I tell you the old fellow would come out
strong? I shouldn’t know him myself?
Amy (rising from easy-chair l.). Here, Lord Ferrol, I have been
sitting in the easiest chair to prevent the others from taking it, so that
you should have it when you came.
Lord F. Er, thanks, awfully!
[Sits. Amy stands in devoted

attitude just at back of
his chair.
Rose (rising and bringing hassock). Let me give you this hassock
—one is so uncomfortable in these deep chairs without one.
Lord F. Er, Thanks! You’re very kind.
Helen (tenderly). Lord Ferrol, will you tell me how you like your
tea?
Lord F. Strong, please, with plenty of cream and sugar.
Amy (admiringly). Ah, how nice it is to find a man who takes his
tea as it should be taken! (looking at men scornfully). It is really a
mental labor to pour tea for the average man.
Dennis. Average is a condition common to many; therefore we are
common. Yet somebody said the common people were never wrong.
Helen. Well, they may never be wrong, but they can be
uncommonly disagreeable!
Lord F. Yes, that’s very true. You know, at home we don’t have
much to do with that class, but out here you can’t keep away from
them.
Amy (turning to men). There! I hope you are properly crushed?
Lord F. (turning to Amy). Eh!
Amy (leaning over Lord F. tenderly). Oh, I wasn’t speaking to you,
dear Lord Ferrol!
Mrs. W. I fear that you have had some unpleasant experiences
here, from the way you speak.
Lord F. Rather. (Helen hands cup with winning smile.) Thanks,
awfully!
George. Perhaps Lord Ferrol will tell us some of them; we may be
able to free him from a wrong impression.
Lord F. The awful bore over here is, that every one tries to make
jokes. Now, a joke is very jolly after dinner, or when one goes to
“Punch” for it.
Steven. To what?
Lord F. To “Punch,” don’t you know,—the paper.
Steven. Oh! Excuse my denseness; I thought we were discussing
jokes.
Lord F. I beg pardon?
Amy. Don’t mind him, Lord Ferrol.
George. No, like “Punch,” he’s only trying to be humorous.
Lord F. Er, is that an American joke?
Dennis. I always thought Punch was a British joke!
Lord F. Er, then you Americans do think it funny?
George. Singularly!
Lord F. What I object to in this country is the way one’s inferiors
joke. It’s such bad form.
Rose (horrified). Surely they haven’t tried to joke you?
Lord F. Yes. Now to-day, coming up here, I took my luggage to the
station, and got my brasses, but forgot your direction that it must be
re-labelled at the Junction, so they wer’n’t put off there. I spoke to
the guard, and he was so vastly obliging in promising to have them
sent back that I gave him a deem.
Omnes. A what?
Lord F. A deem—your small coin that’s almost as much as our
sixpence, don’t you know.
Omnes. Oh, yes!
Lord F. Well, the fellow looked at it, and then he smiled, and said
loud enough for the whole car to hear: “My dear John Bull, don’t you
sling your wealth about in this prodigal way. You take it home, and
put it out at compound interest, and some day you’ll buy out Gould
or Rockefeller.”
Helen. How shockingly rude! What did you do?
Lord F. I told him if he didn’t behave himself, I’d give him in
charge. (Men all laugh.) Now, is that another of your American
jokes?
Dennis (aside). Oh! isn’t this rich?
Amy (aside to Lord F.). Oh, you are beautiful!
Lord F. (bewildered and starting). Thanks awfully,—if you really
mean it!
Steven (coming down to back of Lord F.’s chair). What did she
say, Lord Ferrol? You must take Miss Sherman with a grain of
allowance.
Amy. I’m not a pill, thank you.
Lord F. Why, who said you were?
Dennis. Only a homœopathic sugarplum.
Lord F. I don’t understand.
Steven (aside to Lord F.). Keep it up, old man. It’s superb!
Lord F. I beg pardon,—did you speak to me?
Steven (retreating to fireplace). Oh, no! only addressing vacancy.
Mrs. W. I hope, Lord Ferrol, that there has been enough pleasant
in your trip to make you forget what has been disagreeable.
Lord F. Er, quite so. The trip has been vastly enjoyable.
Rose. Where have you been?
Lord F. I landed in New York and spent the night there, but it was
such a bore that I went on to Niagara the next day. From there I
travelled through the Rockies, getting some jolly sport, and then
went to Florida.
Mrs. W. Why, you have seen a large part of our country; even more
than your father did. I remember his amazement at our autumn
foliage. He said it was the most surprising thing in the trip.
Amy. What did you think of it, Lord Ferrol?
Lord F. It struck me as rather gaudy.
Rose. Why, I had never thought of it, but perhaps it is a little vivid.
Dennis (aside to men). Oh, how I should like to kick him!
Steven (aside to Dennis). Hush! You forget that “Codlin’s your
friend—not Short.”
George. Didn’t you ever see a Venetian sunset?
Lord F. Oh, yes. Why do you ask?
George (sarcastically). I merely thought it might be open to the
same objection!
Lord F. It might—I don’t remember. I’ll look it up in my journal
when I get home, and see if it impressed me at the time.
Helen. Do you keep a journal? (Rises and sits on footstool at Lord
F.’s feet.) How delightful! (Beseechingly.) Oh, won’t you let me look
at what you have with you?
Rose. Please, Lord Ferrol!
Amy. Ah, do!
Lord F. It would bore you, I’m sure.
Dennis (aside). I don’t care if he isn’t a double-barrelled earl, I
should like to kick him all the same!
Helen. Lord Ferrol, you must let us hear some of it.
Rose. If you don’t we shall think you have said something
uncomplimentary of the American women.
Lord F. No, I assure you I have been quite delighted.
Amy. Then why won’t you let us see it?
Lord F. Er, I couldn’t, you know; but if you really are in earnest, I’ll
read you some extracts.
Omnes. Oh, do!
Lord F. I ought to explain that I started with the intention of
writing a book on America, so this (producing book) is not merely
what I did and saw, but desultory notes on the States.
Rose. How interesting!
Lord F. After your suggestion of what I have written of the
American women, I think it best to give you some of my notes on
them.
Mrs. W. By all means!
Lord F. (reading). “Reached Washington, the American capital,
and went direct to Mrs. ——. Cabman charged me sixteen shillings.
When I made a row, butler sent for my host, who, instead of calling a
constable, made me pay the fellow, by insisting on paying it himself.
Mr. —— is a Senator, and is seen very little about the house, from
which I infer the American men are not domestic—presumably,
because of their wild life—”
Mrs. W. (with anxiety). Their what?
Lord F. Their wild life,—spending so much of their time on the
plains, don’t you know.
Mrs. W. (relieved). Oh! Excuse my misapprehension.
Lord F. (reading). “The daughter is very pretty, which Mrs. ——
tells me is unusual in Washington society—as if I could be taken in
by such an obvious Dowager puff! (Men all point at Mrs. W. and
laugh. Mrs. W. shakes her finger reprovingly.) Miss —— says the
Boston girls are plain and thin, due to their living almost wholly on
fads, which are very unhealthy.” (Speaking.) I couldn’t find that
word in the dictionary.
Steven. Sort of intellectual chewinggum, Lord Ferrol.
Dennis. Yes, and like gum, you never get beyond a certain point
with it. It’s very fatiguing to the jaw.
Lord F. (reading). “She says the New York girls are the best
dressed in the country, being hired by the dressmakers to wear
gowns, to make the girls of other cities envious, and that this is
where they get all the money they spend. Very remarkable!”
Helen. Something like sandwich men, evidently.
Lord F. (reading). “The Philadelphia girls, she says, are very fast,
but never for long at a time, because the men get sleepy and must
have afternoon naps.”
Amy. Did she tell you that insomnia is thought to make one very
distinguished there?
Lord F. (making note in book). Er, thanks, awfully. (Reading.)
“She says that the Baltimore girls are great beauties, and marry so
quickly that there is generally a scarcity. It is proposed to start a joint
stock company to colonise that city with the surplus from Boston,
and she thinks there ought to be lots of money in it! Another extreme
case of American dollar worship! The Western girls, she told me, are
all blizzards.” (Speaking.) I don’t think I could have mistaken the
word, for I made her spell it. Yet the American dictionary defines
blizzard as a great wind or snow storm.
George. That is it, Lord Ferrol. They talk so much that it gives the
effect of a wind storm.
Lord F. Ah! much obliged. (Reading.) “Went to eight receptions in
one afternoon, where I was introduced to a lot of people, and talked
to nobody. Dined out somewhere, but can’t remember the name.
Took in a Miss ——, a most charming and lovely—”
Dennis (interrupting). Ah, there!
Lord F. I beg pardon.
Rose. You must forgive his rude interruption, Lord Ferrol.
Lord F. Oh, certainly! You’re sure you’re not bored?
Omnes. By no means. Do go on.
Lord F. “A most charming and lovely girl from New York. She
thinks Miss —— characterised the cities rightly, except her own.
Asked me if I thought she was only a dressmaking advertisement? As
scarcely any of her dress was to be seen, I replied that as I couldn’t
look below the table, I was sure it was the last thing one would
accuse her of being. She blushed so violently that I had to tell her
that I had seen much worse dresses in London; but that didn’t please
her any better, and she talked to the man next her for the rest of the
evening. (All have difficulty in suppressing their laughter.) I met a
Boston girl afterwards who—”
[Bell rings.
Mrs. W. Lord Ferrol, there is our summons to the upper regions.

We will not make a formal guest of you, but will all guide you to your
room.
[All rise.
Lord F. Er, thanks.
Mrs. W. (taking Lord F.’s arm). Your trunks not having arrived
(exit r. d. with Lord F.) we will none of us—
[Exit Amy and Helen r. d.,

evidently laughing.
Rose exits l. d. Men all
go off into paroxysms
of laughter.
Steven (suddenly). Well, I must go and coach him.

Dennis. My dear fellow! you can’t paint the lily.
Enter Rose, quietly, l. d. Men all check their laughter.
Rose. I came back for my skates. Why, what are you laughing
about! And pray what lily are you going to paint?
George. My dear cousin, when a person enters a room already
occupied, without due warning, she must not ask questions relative
to the subject under discussion.
Rose (talking down stage to conceal her laughter). I know very
well what you were talking about. You were making fun of Lord
Ferrol.
Steven. Give you my solemn word we were not making fun of Lord
Ferrol.
Men. No! How suspicious you girls are!
[All laugh. Helen tries to
suppress her laughter,
and then rushes out r.
d., followed by Steven.
Dennis. That journal was a mighty clever dodge of Parker’s. It

staved off all dangerous questions till Steve could coach him.
George. There were some capital notions in it, too. If he will only
give us a few more risqué anecdotes, none of the girls will dare talk to
him.
Dennis. Did you see Mrs. Wycherly’s horrified expression when he
alluded to the wild life of the American men? I am sure she thought
he was going to give us some “exposures in high life.”
Enter Steven hurriedly, r. d.
Steven. Look here, fellows, you’ve got to help me. The girls have
planted themselves on the divan upstairs, and I can’t go to Ferrol’s
room without their seeing me. Come up and occupy them, while I
slip in.
Dennis. Decoy ducks, eh?
Stuart. That’s it. Come along, George.
[All exit r. d.,—slight pause.
Enter Lord F. l. d., dressed as before.

Lord F. (looking about). I must have made a mistake in the door,
for I got into the butler’s pantry; but this is right, I am sure. Queer
place and queer manners! Will make interesting reading, though. Ah,
a good chance to fill up my journal. (Seats himself at desk, takes out
book, and writes, speaking aloud and soliloquising as he does so.)
“At 5.15 reached some unpronounceable and unspellable place. Was
met by Mrs. Wycherly at front door”—curious fashion that! It made
me take her for the housekeeper at first. “She insisted, in spite of my
protests,”—I suppose it was an American idea of hospitality,—“in
taking me at once into the drawing-room and presenting me to the
house-party, and giving me a cup of tea. I felt very disagreeable, both
from the condition I was in, and the fact that all of them kept making
remarks which were entirely unintelligible to me. The young ladies
were very kind, but more forward even than they are in England,
though in a different way.”—I confess I rather liked it.—“Read some
of my journal aloud and had no corrections. Blizzard applied to
Western girls means that they talk a great deal. Was shown to my
room by Mrs. Wycherly and the young ladies, which was rather
embarrassing, especially as they seemed inclined to linger, and only
hurried out on the appearance of the gentlemen. On leaving, one of
the girls slipped her hand into mine and gave it a distinct squeeze, at
the same time asking in a whisper, ‘Did your sister send her love?’”—
Now the idea of Sappho sending her love to a girl of whom she had
never heard!—“I pretended not to hear, but she evidently knew that
she had been too free, for as she left she jerked her head towards the
gentlemen and said, ‘They didn’t see.’ Could not change my travelling
suit, my boxes having gone astray. Found a letter pinned to my pin-
cushion, and when the valet brought the hot water, he gave me
another. Both, judging from the hand-writing and paper, seem to be
written by ladies and gentlemen.”—I should like to know what they
mean? I wonder if it’s good form in America to play jokes on guests?
(Produces notes and reads.) “Dear F.”—(Rises and comes to c.) Now
the idea of the fellow writing to me in that way on the acquaintance
of a single afternoon—why, even my best friends only say “Dear
Ferrol.”—“You were simply marvellous. I would have staked my
bottom dollar on your identity, if I had not known who you were.”—
Now what does he mean by that, I wonder?—“You were so real that
Dennis wanted to kick you, and nothing but the presence of the
ladies prevented him.”—Gad! I wonder if these fellows can be
gentlemen, and if so, whether they are a fair specimen—kick me!
(Pause.) Well, I suppose they’re jealous.—“So don’t be too hard on
us. Now as to the future. If we do not see each other this evening, you
must get up before breakfast, go out of the side door, and strike
across the lawn toward the river. Three minutes’ walk will bring you
in sight of a little summer-house. Come to it, and some of us will be
there prepared to instruct you as to yourself, and put you on your
guard as to the girls, who, you see, are making a dead set at you.”—
You know, that’s just what I thought.—“Remember, in the bright
lexicon, etc., etc., Steve.”—Now what does he mean by “bright
lexicon?” And does he think I’m going to tramp through the snow,
when it’s so evidently a joke? (Opens other note.) “You dear love of a
snob”—Now I should vastly like to know how that is meant. I don’t

The Oxford Handbook of The Bible in Orthodox Christianity Eugen J Pentiuc Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Oxford Handbook of The Bible in Orthodox Christianity Eugen J Pentiuc Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Oxford handbook of the Bible in

Orthodox Christianity Eugen J. Pentiuc

(p. iv) Copyright Page

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers

Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press

© Oxford University Press 2022

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in

You must not circulate this work in any other form

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

ISBN 9780190948658 (hardback) | ISBN 9780190948672 (epub)

Printed by Marquis, Canada

(p. ix) Foreword

All Orthodox traditions insist on the ‫ފ‬centrality of Scripturewithintradition.‫ ދ‬While Scripo

Perhaps the main characteristic of Orthodox Christianity in terms of biblical

hermeneutics is that there is no ‫ފ‬Orthodox hermeneutics‫ ދ‬in the sense of a well-configo

New York City,

(p. xi) Acknowledgments

Thank you, my friends!

'oxa tď Theď‫ފ‬Glory to God!‫ދ‬

Eugen J. PentiucbbbbbbbbbbJanuary 1, 2022

(p. xiii) List of Contributors

Mersha Alehegne is Associate Professor of Ge‫އ‬ez Philology, Department of Linguiso

Stefanos Alexopoulos is Associate Professor of Liturgical Studies, The Catholic Unio

Michael G. Azar is Associate Professor of Theology‫ނ‬Religious Studies at the Univero

Bruce N. Beckis Assistant Professor of New Testament at Hellenic College Holy

Sebastian P. Brockis Emeritus Reader in Syriac Studies, Oxford University. He has

Bogdan G. Bucur, St 9ladimir‫އ‬s Orthodox Theological Seminary, is the author ofAno

Silviu N. Bunta, an Orthodox priest, is Associate Professor of Scripture at the Unio

Nikolaos ChatzinikolaouMetropolitan of Mesogaia and Lavreotiki, is an expert in

,oan ChirilÅis Professor at the Faculty of Orthodox Theology, Cluj-Napoca

(Romania), where he teaches Old Testament, biblical archeology, and Hebrew. He

Athanasios Despotisis Extraordinary Professor at the University of Bonn. He is alo

Mary K. FaragAssistant Professor of Early Christian Studies at Princeton Theologio

John Fotopoulosis an associate professor in the Department of Religious Studies

Garegin HambardzumyanArmenian priest, is the chair of the Mission Department

Miltiadis Konstantinouis Emeritus Old Testament Professor, former Chairman of

Alexandru MihÅilÅUniversity of Bucharest (Faculty of the Orthodox Theoloo

R. W. L. (Walter) Moberlyis Professor of Theology and Biblical Interpretation at

Bradley Nassifis co-editor ofThePhilokalia:A Classic Text of Orthodox Spirituality,

Konstantin Nikolakopoulosis Dean of Department of Orthodox Theology, Ludwig-

Eugen J. Pentiucis the Archbishop Demetrios Professor of Biblical Studies and

the Scriptures: Liturgical Exegesis of the Old Testament in Byzantine Orthodox

Ashley M. Purpurais an Assistant Professor in the School of Interdisciplinary Studo

Nicolae Roddyis Professor of Old Testament at Creighton University and is affiliato

Anthony G. Roeberis Professor of Church History, St. Vladimir‫އ‬s Orthodox Theologo

Christopher R. Seitzis Senior Research Professor of Biblical Interpretation,

Theodore G. Stylianopoulosa Greek Orthodox priest, taught the New Testament

Hany N. Taklaholds an MA in Coptic Studies from Macquarie University, Sydney

Alexis Torranceis the Archbishop Demetrios Associate Professor of Byzantine Theo

Petros Vassiliadisis Emeritus Professor, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki; Direco

Olivier-Thomas Venardis a Dominican priest and Professor of New Testament at

James Buchanan Wallaceis Professor of Religion at Christian Brothers University.

David A. Wilkinsonis Principal of St John‫އ‬s College and Professor in the Departo

The Bible in Orthodox Christianity: Balancing Tradition

Abstract and Keywords

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

(Bock et al. 1964, 2)

Tradition: The Church‫އ‬s Life-Journey

The Centrality of Scripture within Tradition

Is Scripture generated bytraditionor does it generateTradition? (Bunta, in this volume).

(Pentiuc 2014, 165)