1. The need to discern between the Books

 As Orthodox Christians we must have consistency and sequence in our Faith. This is imperative when seeking and consolidating the truth. Discerning the Divine from the human element, the absolute or authentic from the relative, and the secure from the precarious, all have absolute priority and are of utmost importance for the teaching and the mission of the Church.  To secure the upright Faith, and by extension the upright praxis.  This also applies to the Books of the Holy Bible, and not only  the other traditions of the Church.

We therefore have a duty towards God and the truth, to not repeat the coarse generalization of ‘Divine Inspiration’ as indiscriminately upheld by Protestantism (in all the books that it accepts as belonging to the Holy Bible).

However, we must clarify and discern between the ‘Divinely Inspired’, the ‘Divine’, and the books of human wisdom. Otherwise, by perceiving any non-divinely-inspired books or non-divine books among the Books of the Holy Bible, we are at risk of absolutizing their teachings and be led into Islamizing or Protestantizing situations.

Therefore in this article we will be taking a look at what the Holy Fathers and the Synods had to say on this matter.

2. Age-old differentiations

The identification of the Books of the Holy Bible as divinely inspired and as not Divinely inspired is nothing new. According to the Rabbinic Judaic perception, attempts had already been made to limit the divinely inspired books of the Bible, to the period between Moses and King Artaxerxes I “the Long-hand” of the Persians (465-424 BC). (Cmp. Flavius Josephus. “On the antiquity of the Jews, Against Apion, Lectures A and B, in “The Extants” (publ.by Dindorfius), vol.B, Parisiis 1929, pp.340-341.  Cmp also Metropolitan of Myra Chrysostom Constantinides – Emm.Fotiades, “Essay on the sources of  Divine Revelation according to the Orthodox Eastern Church”, Thessaloniki 1971, p.9 onwards).

Such a differentiation, however, had placed a barrier on Divine Inspiration - before and during that period - and it was not accepted multilaterally in agreement (cmp. Ath. Hastoupis, Introduction, p. 547).

On the Christian side thereafter, we noticed in an extensive series of articles, the clear placement of the Holy Bible’s Books into various categories, as determined by the Canons of the Quinisext Ecumenical Synod. The formulations of those Canons, guided by the supervision of the Holy Spirit, are so subtle and accurate that they enable us to not only become acquainted with the various “qualities” of the Holy Bible’s Books; they also reveal to us the accuracy with which the Christians appreciated the various kinds of its Books, even though that placement had not yet been clearly formulated.

For example, we have the instruction of the Ecumenically validated 24^th/32^nd Canon of the Carthaginian Synod, which states: “It was also agreed that, except for the Canonical scriptures, let nothing else in the Church be read in the name of ‘Divine’ scriptures...”. On the basis of these words, we are obliged to make this distinction of Bible Books, in order to comply with the Canon.

It was not by chance that the Quinisext Synod had approved those 6 Canons. It was done with extensive research and study of the (pre)existing Canons, as evidenced not only by the detailed formulations of the Synod on the matter of the Canon, but also by the fact that it had also validated the Canon of Amphilochios of Iconium - but not the Canon of Cyril of Jerusalem, who was a man of greater prestige in the Church.  Additionally, it had also ordered the expulsion of the book of ‘Apostolic Commands’ from the Canon of the Holy Bible (which was included as a book of the Bible in the 85^th Apostolic Canon), because it was adulterated by heretics. (Rallis - Potlis, Vol. II, p. 308).

This research by the Synod was not done only within the framework of that Synod; it had also formulated and crystallized with divine supervision the precedent to that Synod’s clear position of the Church on the issues which it had tackled.

The 85^th Apostolic Canon, as an older, precedent one, does not speak of ‘divine’ or ‘divinely inspired’ books of the Holy Bible: only of ‘respected’ and ‘holy’ books. This is because at the time, these terms regarding the books of the Holy Bible were not yet prevalent.

2. The theological formulation of the terms ‘divine’ and ‘divinely inspired’

The whole distinction between “divinely inspired” and “divine” Books, or between “divine inspiration” and “divine supervision”, had not been developed and theoretically described by the Fathers of the ancient Church. Besides, the Fathers in general “do not develop a certain theory on the relationship between the divine and the human in the Scriptures” (Sav. Agouridis: 'The Meaning of Divine Inspiration”, in his “Biblical Studies”, Vol.1, Thessaloniki 1966, p.7).  The differentiation between Divine Inspiration and Divine Supervision was clearly formulated during the last centuries, by prestigious ecclesiastical men of the Orthodox Church (cmp. Ev. Antoniadis: “On the problem of Divine Inspiration”, p. 102), but also by foreign theologians (cmp. Pan.Trempelas, “The Divinely Inpired Holy Bible”, pp.39,40).

However, despite the fact that this had not yet been formulated and developed in theory, the Fathers and the (Local and Ecumenical) Synods of the Church in practice had used the distinction of these two concepts. This becomes clear to those who study the linking of the 6 Canons approved by the Quinisext Ecumenical Synod. But it is also evident in the entirety of the sacred and divine Canons, which by the way (repeatedly) mention or make reference to the 'Divine' and the 'Divinely Inspired' Books of the Holy Bible. This information has been compiled in a special volume by Pan. I. Boumis, Dr. of Theology and Deputy Professor of the Athens University.

The distinction between 'Divine' and 'Divinely Inspired' Books, as clearly formulated in more recent centuries, can be seen in the following observations by Saint Nicodemus of the Holy Mount Athos (1749-1809).  By making the distinction between the Holy Bible and the sacred Canons, he says that the latter (=canons) were written “with divine supervision, not by divine inspiration”... “It is for this, that they (=canons) are not named ‘divinely inspired’, but they are named 'divine' ”.

And further along he says: "Theologians discern between Revelation, Inspiration and Illumination - that is, between something illuminated and supervised, by which the scribe is protected from every deception or mistake”. In fact he even adds that the olden ecclesiastical men “...say that the mysterious and most important parts of the Scriptures were also engraved upon the inspiration by the Spirit, and as for the historical parts, only under His (the Spirit’s) supervision”. ('Pedalion', p. 112, 113 footnote).

 Saint Nicodemus also says of this difference - in the same text: 'The difference between those two terms is little and very slight; for, both views acknowledge that the most important points of the Scripture were inspired and dictated by the Spirit, and that by the Spirit being present among the sacred authors, He (the Spirit) did not let them be deceived in anything. So that everything in the divine scriptures - both in the dogmas and in the histories and dates - are words of God '.

 However this difference, as minute as it may be, must be taken into account when dealing with the Canons of the Holy Bible and their accurate formulations, in order to achieve their proper interpretation (analysis) and their harmonization (harmonious composition). Because “In life, even the slightest thing is not small” (Canon 1 of Dionysius of Alexandria.  Rallis-Potlis, vol.4, p. 4).

 On this issue, Ev. Antoniadis says: “There also exists an obvious difference in essence between these meanings, because the former bears a certain more positive character, inasmuch as it also bears within itself the inference of providing new and model truths, whereas the supervision of the Spirit implies a somewhat negative character, inasmuch as He (the Spirit) simply protects the sacred men of the Church, keeping them far away from every kind of deception. (“On the problem of Divine Inspiration” p. 151).

 This differentiation between ‘Divine Inspiration’ and ‘Divine’ (=Divine Supervision) Saint Nicodemus had very probably also received from Evgenios Voulgaris (1716-1806). (Cmp. “Theologikon” by Evgenios the Voulgarian (by Archimandrite Ag.Lontopoulos), Venice 1872, p.23 etc. Also cmp. Ev. Antoniadis “On the problem of Divine Inspiration in the Holy Bible”, in ΕΕΘΣΠΑ (=Scientific Yearbook of the School of Theology of Athens University), Vol.4, 1937-1938, p. 102).

This distinction is also adopted by recent Orthodox theologians, such as:

 ·     Constantine Economou, of the Economou lineage, "On the Septuagint interpreters of the Old Divine Scripture", Vol.4, Athens 1849, pp.59-60)

·         Const.Kontogonis (cmp. C.Kontogonis,  "Introduction to the Holy Bible and hermeneutic elements on the Holy Bible”, Athens 1859, pp.8-9)

·         Alexander Lycourgos (in “Hieromnemon”, dated 1859-1861, under the article “Bibliocrisia”, p.302 etc);

·       Zikos Rossis (“Dogmatics System of the Orthodox Catholic Church” by Zikos Rossis, Athens 1903, p.470)

·     Chr.Androutsos (Symbolics from the Orthodox Aspect” by Chr.Androutsos, 2^nd Edition, Athens 1938, p.136. Cmp ibid in “Dogmatics”, p.4)

·      Dem.Balanos (“The recent Orthodox Theology in relation to patristic theology and to the recent perceptions and methods” in the ΕΕΘΣΠΑ (=Scientific Yearbook of the School of Theology of Athens University), Vol.3, 1936-1937, p. 125)

·         Pan.Trempelas (“Dogmatics” by P.Trempelas, Vol.A, pp.99,113,114 etc). (Also cmp. Ev. Antoniades “The Orthodox hermeneutical principles of the New Testament” p.179, footnote 4).

Of the aforementioned, Constantine Kontogonis, more specifically says: “Usually, Divine Inspiration is regarded somewhat dually. First and foremost is Revelation – the revelation of an unknown truth, by which (revelation) the holy Spirit of God reveals to the author what is to be written. And second is the illumination and supervision by the divine Spirit, under which the author (when writing about things familiar to him) is guided from somewhere else -unknown from where– and is thus preserved free from every deception.  “Divine Inspiration” -as it is mainly known- exists within the prophecies and the mysteries; whereas the supervision of the holy Spirit exists within the historical and the educative matters - subjects, which the sacred authors were already familiar with.”  (Con. Kontogonis,  "Introduction to the Holy Bible and hermeneutic elements on the Holy Bible”, Athens 1859, pp.8-9).

 And Z. Rossis similarly says the following : “The “Divine Inspiration” of the Holy Bible is understood as the transmission of divine truths to the sacred authors and the supervision of the Holy Spirit, for the proper presentation thereof. Therefore the same divine Spirit, Who had transmitted the divine truths to the authors, through His supervision had also transmitted to them the ability to present those truths correctly, through their writings”.

 And a little further down, he says in particular the following: “Mainly, Divine Inspiration exists in the parts of the Holy Bible, in which are contained truths that transcend the boundaries of the finite spirit of man and that spring only from the divine Spirit or from a divine revelation. In the parts which contain truths and knowledges which can also be known by the human spirit – that is, in the historical parts of the Holy Bible, etc. – in them, is only the supervision of the divine Spirit (Zikos Rossis, (“Dogmatics System of the Orthodox Catholic Church”, Athens 1903, pp.469,470).

 Pan. Trempelas similarly accepts the same distinction, when writing in the magazine 'ECCLESIA', an article under the title: “Supervision only, or ‘Divine Inspiration' also?”, by saying verbatim: “The 'teaching' in John 14:26** does not imply a simple supervision, but is rather the transmission -unknown by whom- which, to the ignorant is a revelation; whereas ‘Supervision’ pertains to the accurate preservation and presentation of that which is already familiar.”  (ECCLESIA, Vol.16 (1938), p.260. Cmp.also pp.244,247,262 and 262-263).

 ** "But  the Paraclete - the Holy Spirit Whom the Father will  send in My name - He will teach you everything and will remind you of everything that I had said to you."     (John 14:26)

 From all the above, the position of the Orthodox Church is clearly discerned throughout Time, as regards the classification of the “Divine” and the “Divinely Inspired” Books of the Holy Bible.  This is a distinction which must be kept in mind, by all the Christians who are involved in the hermeneutics of sacred texts.

Translation by A. N.