Eastern Orthodox Christian holy books

The argument

Eastern Orthodox Christians locate religious authority in a body of texts that is broader than scripture alone, and the shape of that body explains much of what distinguishes them. Orthodoxy is very much focused upon the Bible, but it is focused equally on the writings of the theological fathers about the scriptures. The second element is not supplementary reading. It reflects a view that scripture is received within a tradition of interpretation rather than approached afresh by each reader, so that what the fathers established about the meaning of a passage carries weight alongside the passage itself. Reading and interpretation are treated as inseparable, and the writings that record the interpretation are therefore part of what is held to be authoritative. The Orthodox canon of scripture is also wider than some others. Both the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox Churches accept certain deutero-canonical books which are not part of the traditional Hebrew Bible. Their inclusion means that the Orthodox Bible is not identical to the collection used by every Christian tradition, and that disagreements about doctrine can begin with disagreement about which texts are in evidence at all. Beyond scripture and its interpreters stands a third source. The Ecumenical Councils of the Orthodox Church have produced multiple Canons — the word meaning a rule, a measure or a judgement — and these dictate behaviour. They are described as very important alongside the Bible, which places conciliar decision on a level with scriptural text rather than beneath it. Their function is practical: they settle what the faithful are to do, where scripture and the fathers leave the application open. What Eastern Orthodox Christians believe therefore rests on scripture, patristic interpretation, a wider canon, and the Canons of the Councils together.

Premises

Counter-arguments

The account is thin and in places misdescribes the Orthodox position. The Orthodox Old Testament is not the Hebrew canon with a few additions but rests on the Septuagint, which differs from the Hebrew Bible in text as well as in contents. "Deuterocanonical" is Roman Catholic usage; Orthodox writers more often speak of the anagignoskomena, the books appointed to be read, and the Orthodox churches have never fixed the list with the finality that Trent gave the Catholic canon — so the two are not simply parallel, and some Orthodox churches include books the Catholic canon omits, among them 1 Esdras, 3 Maccabees and Psalm 151, with 4 Maccabees in an appendix and the Ethiopian tradition wider still. The councils' canons are also misidentified. They are disciplinary and administrative rules of church order, and describing them as "very important alongside the bible" conflates canon law with the canon of scripture — two distinct senses of the same word. Most importantly, the framing omits what is actually distinctive here: in Orthodox theology scripture belongs within Holy Tradition rather than standing as a separate authority beside it, and the liturgy is the primary setting in which it is received. That is the real contrast with the Protestant sibling position's sola scriptura, and it is the point a description of Orthodox belief needs to make. A list of books, finally, does not answer what Orthodox Christians believe, which is what the question asks.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The Orthodox Old Testament rests on the Septuagint, differing from the Hebrew Bible in text as well as contents; "deuterocanonical" is Catholic usage, Orthodoxy never fixed the list with the finality of Trent, and some churches include books the Catholic canon omits, such as 1 Esdras, 3 Maccabees and Psalm 151. [Rejecting P2] The councils' canons are disciplinary rules of church order rather than scripture, so calling them important "alongside the bible" conflates canon law with the canon of scripture. [Rejecting P3] The distinctive Orthodox position is that scripture belongs within Holy Tradition and is received primarily in the liturgy rather than standing as a separate authority — the real contrast with the Protestant position, which a list of books does not convey.