“There Seems To Have CANON PROBLEM In Orthodoxy” w/ Fr. SDY, Alex Sorin And Cleave to Antiquity
Overview
A caller (Quirt, a former Protestant returning to Orthodoxy) raises the “canon problem”: if Orthodoxy has no infallible, verbatim, ecumenically-defined list of 76 books, and jurisdictions differ (e.g., the Georgian Patriarchate and 4 Maccabees), how is Orthodoxy not in the same boat as Protestantism — or worse, self-refuting? FDY’s through-line: the popular “you need an infallible list to have infallible books” argument is a Roman Catholic argument that Orthodox who borrow it shoot themselves in the foot with, because it presupposes a Latin view of the Church’s authority and a binary (inerrant/not) view of canon that the early Church never held. The Orthodox account — the Spirit inspires texts, then guides the community over time to recognize them, with tiers and jurisdictional variation — is not a bug but precisely matches how the canon actually came together, and is the only position consistent with the first millennium. The conversation then pivots to liturgy as the lived context of canon, and to the apostolic origins of the liturgical structures.
1. The “infallible list” argument is a bad argument — and a Latin one
FDY agrees with the critique of the standard apologetic as framed: “You must have an infallible list of books to hold the books themselves to be infallible” is self-defeating on premise one, since it implies Scripture wasn’t infallible before some definitive list existed 0:53, 2:41. Turned on Rome, it yields the absurdity that “your books weren’t infallible until Trent” 0:53. If Rome retreats to historical continuity (the Council of Rome, etc.), the men at that council held a tiered distinction of books “just like the Orthodox do” — not the post-Trent Roman view 1:42.
For an Orthodox to use the argument is worse: “you’re basically using a Roman Catholic view of the church’s authority. When you say the church defined the canon at some point. That’s not how we understand holy tradition” 3:31. FDY notes the argument is better framed as a question of authority/submission or historic continuity rather than epistemology 0:53, and that the strongest form of the objection is simply: “show me in the first millennium where the church accepted a 66-book canon” 10:18.
2. No ecumenical council gives the Orthodox canon verbatim
Pressed on where Orthodoxy’s list is defined, FDY concedes the argument fails on its own terms: “show me the ecumenical council that affirms the Orthodox canon verbatim” 1:42. Trullo affirms three separate canon lists, and the attempt to add them up into a 76-book canon “doesn’t quite get there” 2:41. The Confession of Dositheus is also cited by some, but it doesn’t specify how many Maccabees — “Three or four?” 2:41. Hence: “it’s not required… Why do you need an infallible list to hold the books to be infallible?” 2:41
3. The Spirit-and-recognition model: canon as tradition in action
FDY’s constructive account: “the Holy Spirit inspires the texts that make up the scriptures and then the Holy Spirit guides the church as community to recognize the texts that he inspired over time” 4:18. The same pattern governs councils — robber councils vs. ecumenical councils vs. local councils held to have authority — where participants may not know at the time which council the Spirit spoke at, and the Church later recognizes it 4:18, 5:06. Likewise with the Fathers: the Spirit speaking through them is recognized by the Church over time 5:06. “The nice thing about being Orthodox… is that the way we understand the Holy Spirit to work in tradition is actually how the canon came together in historical [fact]. It actually happened that way” 3:31.
4. Jurisdictional variation is not a defeater — it defeats the early Church too
On the Georgian Patriarchate’s four Maccabees: FDY notes it is listed as non-canonical — “they say it can be read. They don’t read it during the liturgy” — so it is a separate category, not a different canon 6:06. More broadly, treating variation as a defeater “defeats the early church,” which had many differing lists 6:06. The same move applies to the Catholic polemic about Orthodox schisms: the early Church had the same “problem,” so sharing it “kind of proves our identity” 6:51. “We’re not sola scriptura… The church is not formed by a set of authoritative books” 6:51.
5. Texts can’t exercise authority; “canonical” means “read in the Church”
FDY’s deflationary point: “Texts can’t have [authority]… They can’t exercise authority. It’s a text. It can’t do anything. It’s incapable of performing any verbs… Your Bible sits on your shelf” 7:42. What “canonical” actually means is practical and liturgical: which texts are read in the Church 7:42. The disputed Old Testament books are not read liturgically by anyone: “you can go to a monastery [in Russia] and live there for 50 years, you’re not going to hear a reading in liturgy from 4 Ezra” 7:42, 8:43. Hence “in practice, we all agree” 10:18.
6. “Inspired,” “inerrant,” “infallible” are imported fundamentalist-modernist categories
Asked whether non-liturgical books are “inspired,” FDY flags the vocabulary itself: “we’re taking ultimately this Protestant terminology… this is all stuff that comes out of the fundamentalist-modernist debates in early 20th century United States” 8:43, 9:30. He will affirm “there’s no errors in the Bible,” but not with the independent-fundamentalist-Baptist meaning (e.g., exact dimensions of Noah’s Ark); “inerrancy is a foreign [concept]” 9:30. 4 Ezra, whether an appendix in a Slavonic Bible or a separate book, is “profitable to read for various reasons that we don’t go and read publicly” 10:18.
7. Competing lists are perennial — Athanasius and Esther
The panel notes that Protestants cite Athanasius’ list as “almost identical,” but “he left out Esther” — by that standard, is Esther uninspired? 10:18 “There are competing canon lists. They’ve always [been], always” 10:18.
8. Canon is tiered, and the liturgy encodes the tiers
Against the Protestant binary (“it’s a one or a zero”) 12:48, FDY points to liturgical practice as the visible expression of tiers 13:37:
- Gospels (top tier): only clergy read; all stand; procession with the Gospel as the synagogue processed the Torah scroll 13:37.
- Epistle (second tier): may be read by laypeople; people sit 13:37.
- Old Testament readings: traditionally the royal doors are closed; people sit 14:33.
“Our understanding of how we should interact with the text is largely formed by our liturgical participation” 14:33.
9. Codex Sinaiticus and the Shepherd of Hermas
On the Shepherd of Hermas (cited by Irenaeus, included in Codex Sinaiticus): FDY cautions that presence in a codex doesn’t prove scriptural status — an Orthodox Study Bible contains maps and study notes that aren’t Scripture 15:21. The panel also corrects a chronology slip (Hermas post-dates Clement of Rome) 15:21.
10. Liturgy is not the “epistemological basis” — the Church’s normative authority is
FDY declines the caller’s formulation: “I don’t think that we would affirm that the liturgy is the epistemological basis for the canon” 15:21. Regional councils are closer, but even they aren’t the whole story, since canon lists predate them; the basis is “the normative authority of the church in general” 16:12. The liturgy argument also fails for books like Revelation, which is canonical but not read liturgically in the Byzantine rite 16:12. Concession: for a layperson, liturgy may be how you find out what is canonical 17:02.
11. What conciliar canon lists actually did
The lists were practical episcopal directives: bishops telling presbyters which books are authorized to be read in their churches and which are not 17:51. It is not “here is a list now binding on your conscience”; the audience was largely illiterate and had no Bibles at home 18:37. The diagnostic test offered to the caller: “Can I levy this charge against the first-century church?” — if yes, the doubt is with the question, not the Church 19:25, 20:20.
12. Elimination argument: only Orthodoxy matches the first millennium
- Rome (73): Trent anathematized any primary/secondary distinction, elevating all books to one level; modern “Deuterocanon” means only “second in acceptance,” not lesser authority — “completely alien to the early church” 21:15, 22:02.
- Protestants (66): “Show me one jurisdiction… or even a regional council that accepts a 66-book canon. You’re not going to be able to find one” 22:02.
- Orthodoxy: varied jurisdictional lists with internal distinctions — “we’re the only ones that are consistent with the first millennium church” 22:50.
13. Church is for worship, not Bible study
FDY distinguishes the Protestant idea that “church is for Bible study” from the Orthodox idea that “church is for worship” — prayer, incense, the offering of the Eucharist; Bible study is a separate activity 11:07, 11:53. On the Deuterocanon: read them, and obey your spiritual father and bishop about what to read — “they’re all going to tell you to read your Bible” 11:53.
14. Apostolic origins of the liturgy
Two basic structures in the Orthodox Church 24:28:
- Liturgy of St. James — used in the Patriarchate of Jerusalem “always,” though not identically (it now contains the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, which postdates Nicaea/Constantinople) 24:28, 25:17.
- The “Ephesian” liturgy — the structure behind St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil, coming from what St. Paul established at Ephesus, then the hub of Christianity in Asia Minor (associated with St. John, St. Paul, St. Mary Magdalene, the Theotokos) 25:17. This supplies the litanies, antiphons, and dismissal.
What distinguishes Chrysostom from Basil is the anaphora. St. Justin Martyr and St. Ignatius attest that each bishop originally prayed his own anaphora “as he was able”; the apostles had theirs, and early bishops theirs 26:10. As education levels varied (St. Paul vs. St. Peter), eloquent bishops’ anaphoras were adopted regionally and then broadly — like every priest using Chrysostom’s Paschal homily rather than trying to “one-up him” 26:56, 27:42. So the basic structure goes back to the apostles in the churches they established — what Protestants call the “order of worship” 27:42.
FDY’s positions in brief
| Topic | FDY’s view | Where |
|---|---|---|
| ”Infallible list” apologetic | Bad argument; self-defeating on premise one; borrowed from Roman Catholic ecclesiology | 0:53, 2:41, 3:31 |
| Rome’s canon | Not infallible until Trent; Trent anathematized the patristic tiered view; modern “Deuterocanon” means only “second in acceptance” | 0:53, 21:15, 22:02 |
| Orthodox canon defined by ecumenical council? | No — Trullo’s three lists don’t add to 76; Dositheus doesn’t specify Maccabees; not required anyway | 1:42, 2:41 |
| How canon formed | Spirit inspires texts; Spirit guides the community to recognize them over time — same pattern as councils and Fathers | 4:18, 5:06 |
| Georgian 4 Maccabees | Listed as non-canonical, not read liturgically; not a different canon | 6:06 |
| Jurisdictional variation | Not a defeater — it would equally defeat the early Church; sharing the early Church’s “problems” confirms identity | 6:06, 6:51 |
| What “canonical” means | Which texts are read in the Church; texts cannot exercise authority | 7:42 |
| Inerrancy/infallibility language | Foreign fundamentalist-modernist categories; affirms “no errors” but not in Baptist sense | 8:43, 9:30 |
| Deuterocanon / 4 Ezra | Profitable to read privately; not read publicly; “in practice, we all agree” | 10:18 |
| Liturgy as epistemic basis | No — the Church’s normative authority is; liturgy is how laity learn the canon; Revelation isn’t read liturgically yet is canonical | 15:21, 16:12, 17:02 |
| Purpose of conciliar lists | Practical authorization of what presbyters may read to (largely illiterate) congregations | 17:51, 18:37 |
| Canon structure | Tiered (Gospels / Epistle / OT), encoded in liturgical posture and ceremony | 12:48, 13:37, 14:33 |
| Church’s purpose | Worship, not Bible study; Bible study is separate | 11:07, 11:53 |
| Liturgy’s origin | Two structures: St. James (Jerusalem) and “Ephesian” (Chrysostom/Basil); anaphoras originally per-bishop, later adopted for eloquence | 24:28, 25:17, 26:10, 26:56 |
| Best anti-Protestant framing | ”Show me a 66-book canon in the first millennium”; only Orthodoxy is consistent with it | 10:18, 22:02, 22:50 |
References surfaced
Biblical
- 4 Ezra (not read liturgically) 7:42, 8:43, 10:18
- 4 Maccabees (Georgian list, “non-canonical”) 6:06
- Esther (omitted in Athanasius’ list) 10:18
- Revelation (canonical but not read liturgically) 16:12
- Maccabees (number unspecified in Confession of Dositheus) 2:41
- Noah’s Ark dimensions (fundamentalist inerrancy example) 9:30
Patristic / conciliar
- Council of Rome 1:42
- Council of Trent (anathematized tiered canon) 0:53, 21:15, 22:02
- Council in Trullo (three canon lists) 1:42
- Confession of Dositheus 2:41
- St. Athanasius (canon list lacking Esther) 10:18
- St. Irenaeus (citing the Shepherd of Hermas) 14:33
- Clement of Rome (chronology relative to Hermas) 15:21
- Shepherd of Hermas / Codex Sinaiticus 14:33, 15:21
- St. Justin Martyr (bishops’ anaphoras) 26:10
- St. Ignatius (bishops’ anaphoras) 26:10
- St. John Chrysostom (Liturgy; Paschal homily) 25:17, 26:56, 27:42
- St. Basil the Great (Liturgy/anaphora) 25:17, 26:56, 27:42
- Liturgy of St. James (Patriarchate of Jerusalem) 24:28
- Council of Nicaea / Council of Constantinople (Creed) 24:28
Scholarly / historical