Actually, the issue of the canon for Eastern Orthodoxy is not an undisputed topic, nor is it one of critical interest to them given their conviction of the infallibility of the church. Some of their scholars have been very open about this.
Demetrios J. Constantelos: The early church as a whole did not take a definite position for or against the Deuterocanonicals. Church leaders and ecclesiastical writers of both the Greek east and Latin west were not in full agreement. Some preferred the Hebrew canon, while others accepted the longer canon that included the Deuterocanonicals. The ambivalence of ecumenical and local synods (Nicea, 325 CE; Rome, 382; Laodicea, 365; Hippo, 393) was resolved by the Trullan Synod (692). It adopted deliberations of councils that had favored the shorter list, and decisions of other synods that had advocated the longer list. See his article "œEastern Orthodoxy and the Bible" in Bruce M. Metzger and Michael D. Coogan, eds., The Oxford Companion to the Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), p. 174.
Demetrios J. Constantelos: The canonicity of the Deuterocanonical books is still a disputed topic in Orthodox biblical theology. See his article "œEastern Orthodoxy and the Bible" in Bruce M. Metzger and Michael D. Coogan, eds., The Oxford Companion to the Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), p. 175.
John Meyendorff: The Christian East took a longer time than the West in settling on an agreed canon of Scripture. The principal hesitations concerned the books of the Old Testament which are not contained in the Hebrew canon ("œshorter" canon) and the Book of the Revelation in the New Testament. Fourth-century conciliar and patristic authorities in the East differ in their attitude concerning the exact authority of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Esther, Judith, and Tobit. Athanasius in his famous Paschal Letter 39 excludes them from Scripture proper, but considers them useful for catechumens, an opinion which he shares with Cyril of Jerusalem. Canon 60 of the council of Laodicea"”whether authentic or not"”also reflects the tradition of a "œshorter" canon. But the Quinisext Council (692) endorses the authority of the Apostolic Canon 85, which admits some books of the "œlonger" canon, including even 3 Maccabees, but omits Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus as "œadmirable," yet fails to include them in the canon. Therefore, in spite of the fact that Byzantine patristic and ecclesiastical tradition almost exclusively uses the Septuagint as the standard Biblical text, and that parts of the "œlonger" canon"”especially Wisdom"”are of frequent liturgical use, Byzantine theologians remain faithful to a "œHebrew" criterion for Old Testament literature, which excludes texts originally composed in Greek. Modern Orthodox theology is consistent with this unresolved polarity when it distinguishes between "œcanonical" and "œdeuterocanonical" literatue of the Old Testament, applying the first term only to the books of the "œshorter" canon. John Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes, 2nd rev. ed. (New York: Fordham University Press, 1983), p. 7.
John Meyendorff: This system of internal priorities within the canon of Scriptures is further shown in two facts in the history of the scriptural canon in the Eastern half of the Christian world. The first fact is that the final settlement of the canon did not take place until 692, and that uncertainty as to the boundaries of written revelation was not, for many centuries, considered a major problem in doing theology. The second fact is that, when the settlement took place, a measure of uncertainty remained as to the exact status of the "œlonger canon" of the Old Testament; books like Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus"”which were not a part of the Hebrew canon, but only of the Septuagint, and which are called Apocrypha in the West"”were still recognized by some in the eighth century as "œadmissible," though they were not included in the canon. Even today, Orthodox theologians refer to them as deuterocanonical books. They are considered part of Scripture and are read in church liturgically, but occupy something of a marginal place in the canon.
This rather detached Orthodox attitude toward the problem of the scriptural canon shows clearly that for them the Christian faith and experience can in no way be compatible with the notion of Scriptura sola. See his chapter "œDoing Theology in an Eastern Orthodox Perspective" in Daniel B. Clendenin, ed., Eastern Orthodox Theology: A Contemporary Reader (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1995), p. 82.
DTK
