Anglicanism and the "Apocrypha", or Deutedocanonical books

[jas84173]

I was in an Episcopalian Church recently and noticed they have Bibles in all of the pews. It is the NRSV w Apocrypha/Deutedocanonical books. My question is first, do Anglicans accept these books as Scripture, and second, if so do they also accept books in the Eastern Orthodox Church which are also in the NRSV version, as it was created as a common Bible which includes books accepted by Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches as well. The books I speak of in this Bible that are not in the Roman Catholic Canon is 1 and 2 Esdras, 3 and 4 Maccabees, Prayer of Mannaseh, and Psalm 151. Just curious how Anglicans view the Deutedocanonical books.

 

[ltwin]

I was in an Episcopalian Church recently and noticed they have Bibles in all of the pews. It is the NRSV w Apocrypha/Deutedocanonical books. My question is first, do Anglicans accept these books as Scripture, and second, if so do they also accept books in the Eastern Orthodox Church which are also in the NRSV version, as it was created as a common Bible which includes books accepted by Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches as well. The books I speak of in this Bible that are not in the Roman Catholic Canon is 1 and 2 Esdras, 3 and 4 Maccabees, Prayer of Mannaseh, and Psalm 151. Just curious how Anglicans view the Deutedocanonical books.

According to this Church of England document (The view of Scripture taken by the Church of England and the Anglican Communion):

That Scripture means the sixty-six canonical books (the thirty nine books of the Hebrew Old Testament and the twenty seven books of the Greek New Testament which had become generally accepted by the Church during the Patristic period), with the books of the Apocrypha being read by the Church ‘for example of life and instruction of manners’ but not being looked to ‘to establish any doctrine’ (Article 6). ‘Doctrine’ in this context (dogmata in the Latin version of the Articles) means authoritative teaching covering what we would now describe as both faith and morals.

Cut

. . . the Book of Common Prayer also bears constant implicit witness to the central importance of Scripture both in the way that it makes provision for the regular and systematic reading of the Bible (plus parts of the Apocrypha) in English and in the way in the services are full of quotations from the Bible and allusions to biblical texts and biblical ideas.

It seems that the Apocrypha is not considered part of the Canon and is not used for forming authoritative doctrine. However, parts of it are used in public worship and can be read by the faithful.

 

[GKC]

According to this Church of England document (The view of Scripture taken by the Church of England and the Anglican Communion):

It seems that the Apocrypha is not considered part of the Canon and is not used for forming authoritative doctrine. However, parts of it are used in public worship and can be read by the faithful.

Yep.

I read the appropriate selections, as lector, as found in the Lectionary, at Mass, If any decision was made, on the canonical status of any such books, wouldn’t bother me.

 

[Nelka]

Seems strange.

 

[ChurchSoldier]

Seems strange.

Part of the compromise between the two sides of early Anglicanism. The one side wanted to throw out any vestiges of Catholicism, the other wanted to prevent the overthrow of the Catholic faith by the reformers.

A very Anglican solution with a compromise where no one is happy.

 

[GKC]

Part of the compromise between the two sides of early Anglicanism. The one side wanted to throw out any vestiges of Catholicism, the other wanted to prevent the overthrow of the Catholic faith by the reformers.

A very Anglican solution with a compromise where no one is happy.

Yep. Elizabethan Compromise.

 

[JonNC]

Yep.

I read the appropriate selections, as lector, as found in the Lectionary, at Mass, If any decision was made, on the canonical status of any such books, wouldn’t bother me.

Same here. One of the pleasures of being Anglican is the readings from the DC’s in the 1928 BCP

Jon

 

[GKC]

Same here. One of the pleasures of being Anglican is the readings from the DC’s in the 1928 BCP

Jon

The very tome.

 

[Peter_J]

…
books in the Eastern Orthodox Church which are also in the NRSV version, as it was created as a common Bible which includes books accepted by Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches as well.

Very interesting.

Is the NRSV widely used?

 

[Peter_J]

Seems strange.

You might need to be a little more specific, since the OP asked two questions.

 

[Symphorian]

The Church of England has always used the Apocrypha/Deuterocanon. All books of Common Prayer from 1549 to the currently authorised 1662 BCP contain lectionary readings from the Deuterocanon. The canticle ‘Benedicite, omnia opera’ which is found as part of Morning Prayer comes from the Song of the Three Children’. The Common Worship Lectionary continues the tradition of readings from the Deuterocanon, but alternative readings are also provided for those who prefer not to use the DC.

This month we have readings from Susanna, Wisdom and 1 Macabees.

This is our Deuterocanon from the KJB:
1 & 2 Esdras
Tobit
Judith
The Rest of Esther
Wisdom of Solomon
Ecclesiasticus (Sirach)
Baruch, with Epistle of Jeremiah
Song of the Three Holy Children
History of Susanna
Bel and the Dragon
Prayer of Menasses
1 & 2 Maccabees

 

[jas84173]

Very interesting.

Is the NRSV widely used?

Yes the NRSV is one of the most popular versions of the Bible. It comes in three forms. A Protestant Bible, a Catholic version, and a version with the deuteroconicals in between the old and new testament. The latter contains the books in the Eastern Orthodox Churches. 1952. A translation of the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books of the Old Testament followed in 1957. In 1977 this collection was issued in an expanded edition, containing three additional texts received by Eastern Orthodox communions (3 and 4 Maccabees and Psalm 151). Therea er the Revised Standard Version gained the distinction of being officially authorized for use by all major Christian churches: Protestant, Anglican, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox.

 

[Peter_J]

Yes the NRSV is one of the most popular versions of the Bible. It comes in three forms. A Protestant Bible, a Catholic version, and a version with the deuteroconicals in between the old and new testament. The latter contains the books in the Eastern Orthodox Churches. 1952. A translation of the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books of the Old Testament followed in 1957. In 1977 this collection was issued in an expanded edition, containing three additional texts received by Eastern Orthodox communions (3 and 4 Maccabees and Psalm 151). Therea er the Revised Standard Version gained the distinction of being officially authorized for use by all major Christian churches: Protestant, Anglican, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox.

OIC.

 

[jas84173]

This is how the contents of the Old Testament of my Oxford NRSV annotated Bible looks like:

The Hebrew Bible the pentateuch ]Introduction… 3 Genesis… 7 Exodus… .81 Leviticus… .141 Numbers… .185 Deuteronomy… 247
the historical books Introduction… .313 Joshua… .318 Judges… 355 Ruth… 392
1 Samuel (1 Kingdoms in Greek)… 399
2 Samuel (2 Kingdoms in Greek)… 445
1 Kings (3 Kingdoms in Greek)… 485
2 Kings (4 Kingdoms in Greek)… .531 1 Chronicles (1 Paralipomenon in Greek)… 575 2 Chronicles (2 Paralipomenon in Greek)… .617
Ezra (2 Esdras in Greek)… 667
Nehemiah (2 Esdras in Greek)… 685 Esther… 707 the poetical and wisdom books Introduction… .721 Job… 726 Psalms… 773 Proverbs… 895 Ecclesiastes… 935 Song of Solomon… 950 the prophetic books Introduction… 961 Isaiah… 965 Jeremiah… 1057 Lamentations… 1147 Ezekiel… .1159 Daniel… .1233 Hosea… 1259 Joel… .1275 Amos… 1282 Obadiah… 1298 Jonah… .1301 Micah… 1306 Nahum… .1316 Habakkuk… .1321 Zephaniah… .1327 Haggai… .1333 Zechariah… .1337 Malachi… .1351
The Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books Introduction… 1361 The Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books are listed here in four groupings, as follows: (a) books and additions to esther and daniel that are in the roman catholic, greek, and slavonic bibles Tobit… 1368 Judith… 1389
The Additions to the Book of Esther (with a translation of the entire Greek text of Esther)… .1411
Wisdom of Solomon… 1427 Ecclesiasticus, or the Wisdom of Jesus, Son of Sirach… 1457 Baruch… 1529
The Letter of Jeremiah (Baruch ch 6)…1537
The Additions to the Greek Book of Daniel:
The Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Jews… 1543 Susanna… 1548 Bel and the Dragon… 1552
1 Maccabees… 1555
2 Maccabees… 1599 (b) books in the greek and slavonic bibles; not in the roman catholic canon
1 Esdras (2 Esdras in Slavonic, 3 Esdras in Appendix to Vulgate)… 1633
Prayer of Manasseh (in Appendix to Vulgate)… 1656
Psalm 151 (following Psalm 150 in the Greek Bible)… 1658
3 Maccabees… 1659
(c) in the slavonic bible and in the latin vulgate appendix
2 Esdras (3 Esdras in Slavonic, 4 Esdras in Vulgate Appendix)… 1675 (Note: In the Latin Vulgate, Ezra–Nehemiah are 1 and 2 Esdras.)
(d) in an appendix to the greek bible
4 Maccabees… .1717

 

[Michael85]

Article VI of the Thirty-Nine Articles contains the following:

**And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following:

The Third Book of Esdras
The Fourth Book of Esdras
The Book of Tobias
The Book of Judith
The rest of the Book of Esther
The Book of Wisdom
Jesus the Son of Sirach
Baruch the Prophet
The Song of the Three Children
The Story of Susanna
Of Bel and the Dragon
The Prayer of Manasses
The First Book of Maccabees
The Second Book of Maccabees**

I think that this list of books goes beyond the Catholic canon, as we do not recognise Third and Fourth Esdras (also known as 1 and 2 Esdras).

 

[jimkhong]

The Church of England has always used the Apocrypha/Deuterocanon. All books of Common Prayer from 1549 to the currently authorised 1662 BCP contain lectionary readings from the Deuterocanon. The canticle ‘Benedicite, omnia opera’ which is found as part of Morning Prayer comes from the Song of the Three Children’. The Common Worship Lectionary continues the tradition of readings from the Deuterocanon, but alternative readings are also provided for those who prefer not to use the DC.

This month we have readings from Susanna, Wisdom and 1 Macabees.

This is our Deuterocanon from the KJB:
1 & 2 Esdras
Tobit
Judith
The Rest of Esther
Wisdom of Solomon
Ecclesiasticus (Sirach)
Baruch, with Epistle of Jeremiah
Song of the Three Holy Children
History of Susanna
Bel and the Dragon
Prayer of Menasses
1 & 2 Maccabees

Thanks, that answers something I have been wondering about for some time. As I noticed that the Anglican lectionary is very much based on the Catholic one.

Then do the Anglican Communion have some one involved with the Catholic Church when the lectionary is reorganised?

 

[Symphorian]

The Epistle & Gospel readings found in the 1662 BCP are largely the same as appointed in the pre-Reformation English Church. The ecclesiastical year is divided into 2 parts with Advent to Trinity being the first and commemorates the life of Christ on earth in their order: incarnation, nativity, circumcision, manifestation to the Gentiles; His doctrine and miracles, baptism, fasting, and temptation; His agony, cross, death, and burial; His resurrection, ascension and the mission of the Holy Ghost. In the second part of the year, from Trinity to Advent, the Epistles form a continuous series and the Gospels are chosen with reference to them.

In the Church of England the Revised Common Lectionary (RCL) is now widely used and has a three year cycle of readings with a Psalm and three readings for each Sunday. In each year one of the synoptic Gospels predominates, with a semi-continuous approach to reading it, especially in ordinary time. Other books of the Bible are also read semi-continuously at appropriate seasons as well as in ordinary time. In the CofE the RCL is recommended as the normative lectionary provision.

The RCL was adopted for a number of reasons, one being ecumenical considerations; as you rightly point out, it is very similar although not identical with the Roman Lectionary.

 

[jimkhong]

The RCL was adopted for a number of reasons, one being ecumenical considerations; as you rightly point out, it is very similar although not identical with the Roman Lectionary.

Thanks Symphorian, So was this a case of coincidental congruence where two independent bodies working independently arrived at similar results? Or the Anglicans working totally separate from the Catholics adopted principles underpinning the Catholic lectionary without contact with the Catholics and arrived at similar results. Or the Catholics invited the Anglicans (or the Anglicans asked to be invited) when the Catholics revised the Lectionary and developed the Catholic Lectionary with varying degrees of Anglican (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Thanks Symphorian, So was this a case of coincidental congruence where two independent bodies working independently arrived at similar results? Or the Anglicans working totally separate from the Catholics adopted principles underpinning the Catholic lectionary without contact with the Catholics and arrived at similar results. Or the Catholics invited the Anglicans (or the Anglicans asked to be invited) when the Catholics revised the Lectionary and developed the Catholic Lectionary with varying degrees of Anglican (name removed by moderator)ut.

My understanding is that the Common Lectionary was inspired by the post-Vatican II RC lectionary, and was the work of Christians of several denominations, including, I think, RC (name removed by moderator)ut. It is used by several denominations, not just Anglican.

 

[jimkhong]

My understanding is that the Common Lectionary was inspired by the post-Vatican II RC lectionary, and was the work of Christians of several denominations, including, I think, RC (name removed by moderator)ut. It is used by several denominations, not just Anglican.

Thanks Picky. Other Anglican (or Anglican-like) denominations? Or non-Anglicans?