www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Scripture and Patristic Writings Canon

Does your canon of Scripture include what I would refer to as the "Apocraphal" writings?

(If that is a derogatory term, please forgive my ignorance)

Eastern Catholics have the same canon as the Western Catholics. But Eastern Catholics have as "books for edification" (to use St. Athanasius' words) certain books that the Western Catholics regard as apocryphal.

The "books for edification" of the Easter Catholic Churches are actually canonical in the Eastern Orthodox Churches. There is some variety in the Eastern Orthodox Churches regarding the Canon - though it is only by one book.

These "books for edification" include III Maccabees, III and IV Esdras, and Psalm 151. Remember that these books to the Eastern Orthodox are actually canonical.

Among the Oriental Orthodox Churches, the canons vary. The Coptic Orthodox have always had the same canon as the Catholic Church. The Armenian Orthodox are closer to the Eastern Orthodox. The Syrian Orthodox (I think) have even more books in the canon than the Eastern Orthodox, and their N.T. also differs slightly from the Catholic and other Orthodox Churches.

I must note (with admitted sadness) that Pope Cyril V of blessed memory (Coptic Orthodox Church) formally removed the Deuterocanonicals from our canon in 1929. However, in PRACTICE, the common lay Coptic Orthodox venerates and reads the same books as the Catholic Church.

Hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk

Thanks for the clear concise answer.

Roger

Marduk ... I didn't know that!

Can I find these on line??? "These "books for edification" include III Maccabees, III and IV Esdras, and Psalm 151".

Thank you Pastor Berean ... We're all learning a lot from your quesitons !

Dear Rose,

Do you mean the texts, or online verification for what I am saying? If the former, you can find these texts in any Protestant publication of Scripture that includes "Apocrypha/Deuterocanonicals." If the latter, aside from online verification, you can ask any Eastern Catholic on this website. You will probably get more quick responses in the East-West forum.

Blessings,
Marduk

I've read somewhere that the King James Version originally had all the books that the Catholic canon contains. It is the Puritan version that cut out the books known to most Protestants as Apocrypha.

BOB

Dear Marduk,

Where do you find this information? How do you know that Eastern Catholics do not share the same canon as their Orthodox brethren?

I don't think they were required to abandon these books, when they accepted communion with the Pope? If they were, why was this expected or required?

Nicholas

Not exactly the Puritans. It was the State that changed it, to be sure, after pressure from the "low-church" segment of the Anglican Church. The Puritans never had any power or influence in England. They were a persecuted group and moved to the "New World" to avoid that persecution.

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear Nicholas,

I assume it is so because the Canon of the Catholic Church obtained a DOGMATIC decree from Trent. Thus, this canon should be PART of the Eastern Catholic faith, should it not? The issue of the Canon of Scripture is not a discpline, practice or theologoumenon that can change according to a particular jurisdiction. N'est pas?

In any case, why does it matter? Eastern Catholics still use those books anyway for spiritual edification. However, that they are not canonical means they can no longer be used to help define doctrine/dogma.

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S. Just because it is not in your Canon does not mean you have to abandon them. This was St. Athanasius' whole point when he called only the proto-canonical books "canonical," while maintaining that the other books (namely, the deuteros) were nevertheless useful for the spiritual edification of the reader.

Actually No Mardukm. The Orthodox in communion with Rome should have the same canon as the Orthodox.
Besides it was not the State that excluded the dutero canonical books but the Bible Societies that sprung up around the 1700 and 1800 's, they were in predominiate in publishing Bibles and were more radically protestant than the others.
They excluded them.
Stephanos I

I'm not sure the decrees of Trent are binding on the Eastern Catholic Churches in the same way that they are binding on Roman Catholics.

1. The decree was clearly aimed at the Protestants who were denying the canonicity of certain books. I believe the sense of the decree suggests that Catholics must accept 'these' but I think it is a stretch to say we must 'only' accept these. Looking at the context, the reason for the decree, and the exact wording is important. In any case, the fathers of Trent certainly did not have in mind the canon used in the Orthodox Church (which has never specifically been an object of a dogmatic definition or condemnation of the Roman Catholic Church). Trent was addressing specifically the problems the Roman Catholic Church was facing from the Protestant Reformation.

2. The 2nd Vatican Council clearly recognizes the legitimacy of the eastern historical, theological and canonical discipline of the East. It seems that we must take Vatican II at its word (using the same criteria above, "context, reason, wording". How can we accept the legitimate alternative discipline, and yet reject it in every place that it differs from Roman Catholic discipline. (...which seems to be your suggestion?).

3. If the Eastern Orthodox Churches had been present at Trent, perhaps they would have been able to point out the problematic elements of the decrees, and a more catholic teaching would have been offered?

nicholas

How is that? in what way?

Thanks for the edification.
-ray

Hi all!

i don't think this is exactly true - the Puritans did not change the canon themselves, but there were times during the change from Roman Catholicism to the Church of England where Protestants (mostly Puritans/Calvinists) tortured and killed Roman Catholics with the backing of the state. Then the king/queen would change, and the Roman Catholics would torture and kill Protestants. The was some back and forth with Protestant and RCC rulers, and it had devestating impacts on parishes throughout the country.

At least that's what i've read - i could be wrong.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

In reference to the omission of the deutero-canonical/"apocryphal" books from the Bibles published by various Protestant bodies:

The Anglican/Episcopal Churches, in their lectionaries for Morning and Evening Prayer as printed in the various recentions of the "Book of Common Prayer," utilize the deutero-canonical/"apocryphal" books. It has always been possible to find copies of the KJV with these books because of this specific need.

The complete removal of these books from Bibles does, indeed, stem from the growth of non-sectarian "Bible Societies."

In another corner, it was Luther's practice to keep the books and place them "in-between" the Old and New Testaments. However, that practice died out in Germany and Scandinavia in the 1800s.

(Prof.) J. Michael Thompson
Byzantine Catholic Seminary
Pittsburgh, PA