Sources of the Greek Canon Law

to the Quinisext Council (692):

Councils and Church Fathers

Heinz Ohme

2.1 Index of Abbreviations

2.2 Introduction: The Organization of the Material and the Most Important Editions

2.3 Canons of Synods

Canons of the Apostles

Synod of Nicaea (325)

Synod of Ankyra (314)

Synod of Neokaisareia (315/319)

Synod of Gangra

Synod of Antioch

Synod of Laodikeia

Synod of Constantinople (381)

Synod of Ephesus (431)

Synod of Chalcedon (451)

Synod of Serdica (341)

Synod of Carthage (419)

Synod of Constantinople (394)

Synod of Constantinople (692) (Quinisext Council)

2.4 Canons of the Fathers

Origin and Content

Dionysios of Alexandria

Peter of Alexandria

Gregory Thaumaturgos (Wonderworker)

Athanasios of Alexandria

Basil the Great

Gregory of Nyssa

Gregory of Nazianzos

Amphilochios of Ikonion

Timothy of Alexandria

Theophilos of Alexandria

Cyril of Alexandria

Gennadios of Constantinople

Cyprian of Carthage

22.2 Introduction: The Organization of the Material and the Most Important Editions

a) Concerning organization. It is usual to organize the canonical material of Byzantine canon law into four groups: 1. canons of the Apostles; 2. canons of ecumenical synods; 3. canons of local synods; 4. canons of the Fathers. This organization is found in most of the editions available today. It was first found in c. 1 of the Seventh Ecumenical Council (787), and it has been generally followed in the Orthodox Church in the second millennium. Its characteristic is a systematic organization of the material under dogmatic rubrics, which is demonstrated in the placing of the Canons of the Apostles, but particularly in the canons of ecumenical synods as well as local synods.

An exposition primarily interested in the history of the sources cannot adopt this organization without modification, since it is already rendered dubious by the pseudoepigraphic character of the Canons of the Apostles as well as by the historical problem of regarding the Constantinople synods of 381 and 692 as ‘Ecumenical Councils'. The most problematic aspect of the systematic approach is the fact that it ignores the development and coming-into-being of the ‘Ecumenical Council’ as an institution which only reaches full maturity in the eighth century. For earlier centuries this concept cannot be applied as a valid historical distinction.

I have decided not to present the material in this essay in a strictly chronological order. For example, the tradition of treating the earliest synods of the church as a block in the sequence: Ankyra, Neokaisareia, Gangra, Antioch, and Laodikeia, will collapse, since Antioch would have to be placed before Gangra. It is more significant, however, that such a historicizing chronological order would lose the weighting of the canonical material in the early church as well as the process of formation which is clarified by the traditional order. The overwhelming significance of the synod of Nicaea (325), whose canons were also of central importance, would thus be obscured, and decisions that became significant only later, such as the canons of Carthage (258), Constantinople (394), and Carthage (419) would receive prior treatment. Such a chronological treatment would in fact produce an ahistoric ordering.

This portion of the History of Medieval Canon Law treats the sources of canonical material of Byzantine canon law down to the so-called Quinisext Council (692). Although it is known that this council did not bring the development of canon law in the Byzantine East to a close, this terminus is justified both historically and in terms of substance. C. 2 of the Trullanum constitutes an apex and milestone for the canon law of the early church and its further development in the Greek East. It is this canon which first listed and authorized the canons of the apostles, the synods and the Fathers, hence the whole of the law applicable until then. One may speak here of the first synodical codification, and the canon is of basic importance for Orthodoxy.

The model for c. 2 of the Quinisext was the canonical collection Syntagma XIV titulorum, which originated in Constantinople at the end of the sixth century. The canon not only adopts the canonical material developed there, but also adopts the organization found in the second part of the Syntagma. The canon constitutes, so to speak, its synodal recognition. Although there the Canons of the Apostles are already placed at the very beginning, the further order is still entirely in keeping with the subsequent development of this corpus canonum. This is particularly the case with the synodal canons, which are not organized in the manner they would be later. Rather, the oldest corpus contained the synods of Nicaea, Ankyra, Neokaisareia, Gangra, Antioch, Laodikeia, and Constantinople (381). Then come the synods of Ephesus, Chalcedon and Serdica; finally Carthage (419) and Constantinople (394) are followed by the Canons of the Fathers. This generic division appears to preserve the best ordering according to historical criteria, and for that reason it is the order that will be observed in the following exposition. It will not be possible to treat the Canons of the Apostles as a category in their own right. Rather, they will be treated as synodal canons, which in fact they are.

b) The Most Important Editions. The edition by P.-P. Joannou published in 1962 in Grottaferrata by the ‘Pontifica Commissione per la Redazione del Codice di Diritto Canonico Orientale’ should be mentioned first. It is the only one of the currently accessible textual editions which can be called a critical edition. The foundation of Joannou's text is the edition of the Synogoga of John Scholastikos