P
Picky_Picky
Guest
Oh, plenty of non-Anglicans, I believe. Lutherans, Reformed, those sorts of people.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Yes, regarding Lutherans, at least, though here in the US they typically (not always) replace deuterocanonical readings.Oh, plenty of non-Anglicans, I believe. Lutherans, Reformed, those sorts of people.
J
jimkhong
Guest
Meaning outside of US, there are churches which read deuterocanonical readings at Holy Communion? If read, do they also accept it as basis for doctrine?Yes, regarding Lutherans, at least, though here in the US they typically (not always) replace deuterocanonical readings.
How then do Lutherans (or Anglicans for that matter) who accept the deuterocanonical books approach the other books read by different Orthodox churches but not in the Catholic Bible?
Typically on a feast day. Here’s an article about it=jimkhong;14595274]Meaning outside of US, there are churches which read deuterocanonical readings at Holy Communion? If read, do they also accept it as basis for doctrine?
Determine doctrine? No. Support doctrine? Yes
They’re apocrypha. That doesn’t mean they’re not valuable. I regularly read the Prayer of Manasseh during lent.How then do Lutherans (or Anglicans for that matter) who accept the deuterocanonical books approach the other books read by different Orthodox churches but not in the Catholic Bible?
J
jimkhong
Guest
Thanks Jon. What is the basis for accepting as deuterocanonical books accepted by the Catholics Church but as apocrypha books accepted by the Ethiopian Orthodox?They’re apocrypha. That doesn’t mean they’re not valuable. I regularly read the Prayer of Manasseh during lent.
Inertia? Shared history? Same rite of origin?
Btw, reading the link, can I conclude that the words deuterocanonical and apocrypha can be used interchangeably?
The basis upon which Lutherans view books is by looking at the historical witness of the Church. This link will explain it better than me.Thanks Jon. What is the basis for accepting as deuterocanonical books accepted by the Catholics Church but as apocrypha books accepted by the Ethiopian Orthodox?
Inertia? Shared history? Same rite of origin?
Btw, reading the link, can I conclude that the words deuterocanonical and apocrypha can be used interchangeably?
I think, however, that you make a good observation that Lutherans and Anglicans are western traditions within the Church, that we share our history with the Catholic Church. We are all western Christians.
As for the two terms, I use deuterocanon for the seven books the Catholic Church defines as canon (but Protestants typically do not). All others apocrypha.
G
GKC
Guest
Some folks break out the pseudepigrapha as a subset of the apocrypha.The basis upon which Lutherans view books is by looking at the historical witness of the Church. This link will explain it better than me.
I think, however, that you make a good observation that Lutherans and Anglicans are western traditions within the Church, that we share our history with the Catholic Church. We are all western Christians.
As for the two terms, I use deuterocanon for the seven books the Catholic Church defines as canon (but Protestants typically do not). All others apocrypha.
True. I was unfortunately brief on my answerSome folks break out the pseudepigrapha as a subset of the apocrypha.
S
steido01
Guest
Is the distinction an official position in the APA or other Anglican bodies?Some folks break out the pseudepigrapha as a subset of the apocrypha.
G
GKC
Guest
Not that I’ve heard of. But it is common in folks who study such things. M.R. James’ APOCRYPHAL NEW TESTAMENT was where I first ran into it, many years ago.Is the distinction an official position in the APA or other Anglican bodies?
J
jimkhong
Guest
Are you referring to those books canonical in Ethiopian Church but not by others?Some folks break out the pseudepigrapha as a subset of the apocrypha.
Somehow I don’t feel that it is fair. As they are in the same situation as the Catholic deuterocanonical books, we should be classifying them in the same manner. They should also be deuterocanonical as the Catholic books are. Or even tretero-canonical, if there is such a word. I can’t accept pseudepigrapha for the Catholic canonical books. I can accept apocrypha (as long as not apocryphal) but pseudepigrapha seems to imply a certain incorrect-ness.
Are we discriminating against Ethiopian canon just because they are not from our worship traditions?
And the situation is not so straightforward: If I am not mistaken, 3 & 4 Maccabees was included into Romanian Catholic Rite Bibles for a short while. So, even within the Catholic Church, was deuterocanonical also elastic? I don’t believe the OT canonical lists matter so much to Catholics for there to be such definition to categorise.
J
jas84173
Guest
So in a certain point of view, Anglicans use more books than Catholics. 1 and 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Mannaseh are in an appendix to the Latin Vulgate however are not considered Canon at all.
G
GKC
Guest
No, I was referring to the comments in James’ intro to the book I cited above. James was Anglican, and was not considering the issue of the deuterocanonicals in his book on the Apocryphal New Testament. He does make the obvious point that any such document (if correctly considered as non-canonical) was, if attributed to a particular apostolic author, necessarily pseudepigraphical. As you know the term merely means falsely attributed.Are you referring to those books canonical in Ethiopian Church but not by others?
Somehow I don’t feel that it is fair. As they are in the same situation as the Catholic deuterocanonical books, we should be classifying them in the same manner. They should also be deuterocanonical as the Catholic books are. Or even tretero-canonical, if there is such a word. I can’t accept pseudepigrapha for the Catholic canonical books. I can accept apocrypha (as long as not apocryphal) but pseudepigrapha seems to imply a certain incorrect-ness.
Are we discriminating against Ethiopian canon just because they are not from our worship traditions?
And the situation is not so straightforward: If I am not mistaken, 3 & 4 Maccabees was included into Romanian Catholic Rite Bibles for a short while. So, even within the Catholic Church, was deuterocanonical also elastic? I don’t believe the OT canonical lists matter so much to Catholics for there to be such definition to categorise.
If anyone is picking on the Ethiopian Church, I’m not aware of it.
J
jimkhong
Guest
Thanks for the clarification that these are not your comments. But my view still remains that to identify certain books as pseudepigraphical is not appropriate as modern scholarship today informs us that almost every book of the Bible can be debatably ‘falsely attributed’. The Pentateuch are understood to be written centuries after Moses. Virtually every in-depth commentary today is prefaced by an explanation on who the author might have been. Not that I have issue with what we today call false attribution as the classical world work on a different basis to us. I accept the term pseudepigraphical on a scholastic basis as long as we understand that the term ‘falsely’ do not necessarily imply an intention to mislead (although it may have in certain cases).No, I was referring to the comments in James’ intro to the book I cited above. James was Anglican, and was not considering the issue of the deuterocanonicals in his book on the Apocryphal New Testament. He does make the obvious point that any such document (if correctly considered as non-canonical) was, if attributed to a particular apostolic author, necessarily pseudepigraphical. As you know the term merely means falsely attributed.
If anyone is picking on the Ethiopian Church, I’m not aware of it.
To call Esdras pseudepigraphical but not Psalms is scholastically incorrect. If the intention was to differentiate the books accepted by Catholics but not by Protestants from the books accepted by (say) Ethiopians but not Protestants, then I would then ask why the need to do so? I don’t think it is picking on the Ethiopians (which was just an example) but rather the Occidental-centrism of the times, which hopefully scholars from the West would today have left behind.
G
GKC
Guest
And it is the falsely, in some cases, that it seems to me that the point is applied. Not a point that I am particularly interested in, myself, but I read James at a young age, and the discussion remains with me. If it is an issue against which you feel a crusade is required, go for it. James was mentioning a term that he himself did not need, apocryphal being satisfactory.Thanks for the clarification that these are not your comments. But my view still remains that to identify certain books as pseudepigraphical is not appropriate as modern scholarship today informs us that almost every book of the Bible can be debatably ‘falsely attributed’. The Pentateuch are understood to be written centuries after Moses. Virtually every in-depth commentary today is prefaced by an explanation on who the author might have been. Not that I have issue with what we today call false attribution as the classical world work on a different basis to us. I accept the term pseudepigraphical on a scholastic basis as long as we understand that the term ‘falsely’ do not necessarily imply an intention to mislead (although it may have in certain cases).
To call Esdras pseudepigraphical but not Psalms is scholastically incorrect. If the intention was to differentiate the books accepted by Catholics but not by Protestants from the books accepted by (say) Ethiopians but not Protestants, then I would then ask why the need to do so? I don’t think it is picking on the Ethiopians (which was just an example) but rather the Occidental-centrism of the times, which hopefully scholars from the West would today have left behind.
And he wrote really excellent ghost stories, which is in his favor.
J
jimkhong
Guest
Haha, I am not the crusading type. I have enough issues in my country to campaign on - democratic elections, inappropriate Islamic conversions of our youths. Much more important than fighting ghosts of ages past.And it is the falsely, in some cases, that it seems to me that the point is applied. Not a point that I am particularly interested in, myself, but I read James at a young age, and the discussion remains with me. If it is an issue against which you feel a crusade is required, go for it. James was mentioning a term that he himself did not need, apocryphal being satisfactory.
And he wrote really excellent ghost stories, which is in his favor.
G
GKC
Guest
One picks ones battles, I agree. James’ ghosts did need fighting, being particularly malevolent spectres.Haha, I am not the crusading type. I have enough issues in my country to campaign on - democratic elections, inappropriate Islamic conversions of our youths. Much more important than fighting ghosts of ages past.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.