|
The Orthodox Pages
|
||||
Back
   |
|
|||
|
|
Morning, Father, the book of revelations is the only book not read during the Divine Liturgy. I understand that it was not immediately accepted by the Church and only accepted slowly, slowly. Why is it still not read during the Divine Liturgy?
Answer to Question 413
For over two hundred years a number of books we now take for granted as being part of the New Testament were disputed by the Church before being included in the canon of the Bible. Many other books were considered for inclusion, but eventually excluded. The earliest complete listing of all twenty-seven books of the New Testament was not given until A.D. 367, by St. Athanasius. But this was not accepted universally and there were still some books that were disputed like Revelations, Hebrews, Philemon, and the Catholic Epistles (I and II Peter, I and II and III John, and Jude). For instance, the Old Latin translation of the New Testament contained the present day canon without the books, II Peter, James, and Hebrews. The Epistle to the Hebrews was clearly excluded in the Western Church in a number of listings of the second, third, and fourth centuries. Prominent among reasons for excluding this book were concerns over its authorship. Primarily due to Augustine and his influence upon certain North African councils, the Epistle to the Hebrews was finally accepted in the West by the end of the fourth century.
On the other hand, the book of Revelation, also known as the Apocalypse, written by the Apostle John, was not accepted in the Eastern Church for several centuries. Once again, questions concerning authorship of the book were at the source of the controversy. Among Eastern authorities who rejected this book were Dionysius of Alexandria (third century), Eusebius (third century), Cyril of Jerusalem (fourth century), the Council of Laodicea (fourth century), John Chrysostom (fourth century), Theodore of Mopsuesta (fourth century), and Theodoret (fifth century). In addition, the original Syriac and Armenian versions of the New Testament omitted this book.
Many Greek New Testament manuscripts written before the ninth century do not contain the Apocalypse, and it is not used in the liturgical cycle of the Eastern Church to this day. St. Athanasius supported the inclusion of the Apocalypse, and it is due primarily to his influence that it was eventually received into the New Testament canon in the East. The early Church actually seems to have made an internal compromise on the Apocalypse and Hebrews. The East would have excluded the Apocalypse from the canon, while the West would have done without Hebrews. Simply put, each side agreed to accept the disputed books of the other.
I cannot say why we still do not read from the Book of Revelation in Church, I can only assume that the rule of regular use of a book liturgically was an important principle and because Revelation was rejected for so many centuries, it continued to be left out of liturgical use. In our generation there is no other book that has had so many commentaries, writings, and references as this book and a great deal more will be written in the future. But it’s surprising that the Church Fathers paid very little attention to it and in fact none of the early fathers mention or try to give an interpretation to it like they do with all the other books of the New Testament.
|
|
||
