I am not familiar with the Apocrypha that must be a protestant word. I am familiar with the deuterocanonical books?1 & 2 Esdras, 3 & 4 Maccabees, Psalm 151, and the Prayer of Manasseh are books in the Orthodox Bible, but not in Catholic Bibles. I called them Apocrypha because we don’t recognize them any more than the Protestants recognize our Deuterocanonicals. They are Apocrypha to Catholics. I don’t know what the Orthodox call them (maybe they’re considered part of Deuterocanonical for the Orthodox?).
Sorry couldn’t resist.
The Eastern Orthodox do not have a set canon of Scripture. Indeed, different Eastern Orthodox churches do not necessarily have the same set of books in their Bibles.
When did the Orthodox add the books, then? Was it after the schism?
Like I said, they don’t have a set canon and have no way of defining the issue since they have no effective way of calling or ratifying ecumenical councils.
I found this: “Catholic Bibles include all of these except the Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151, 3 and 4 Maccabees, and 1 and 2 Esdras, though the Prayer of Manasseh and 1 and 2 Esdras appear in an appendix after the New Testament. Greek Orthodox Bibles include all of these additions except 2 Esdras and 4 Maccabees, though 4 Maccabees makes it into the appendix. And Russian Orthodox Bibles (called Slavonic Bibles) include all these books except the Prayer of Manasseh and 4 Maccabees.” So when did the Greek Orthodox and Russian Orthodox add them? Also, I’ve never seen a Catholic Bible with the Prayer of Manasseh and 1 & 2 Esdras, not even in an appendix after the New Testament.
And which books would be considered, since not all Orthodox agree on the same ones? Although it does not appear to be a hindrance to Orthodox unity that the Russian and Greek canons are different. I don’t know what other Orthodox (besides Russian and Greek Orthodox) canons are.
I don’t think they would be reconsidered at all. The west has a distince canon formed by its own tradition as the East has pretty much the same canon the Copts I think have the same canon and the Greeks only have one book 3 Maccabees that is different. Since the books in question usually 3 and 4 Maccabees and the 3,4 Esdras are not important in domgatic or theological way the western church we would simply pass over the books and give them a neutral status of not being anathama nor being officially canonized but perhaps encourage catholic publishders to once again use these books as an apendex as they used to do when they printed the older editions of the Douy Rheims and of course the Latin Vulgate. Since none of our traditions are based on sola scriptura I don’t see a problem in agreeing to have some books in a non-declared category in the west and allowed to be in the canon for the East. The big problem would be the Etopians who have a unique canon far different from either the EO or the catholic church. I don’t have an answer for that one.
I don’t think this would work. Assuming reunification, how can the same Church have a different canon for different groups within the Church? I doubt that the Catholics would accomodate the Orthodox on the issue because that would be an admission that the Catholic Church has been using an incomplete canon for the last 2000 years.
What is their canon?
Its already been done the western church ie the Latin Rite and Coptics went with the canon defined by the african councils while the Eastern Church went with a slightly different canon and this was the way it was for nearly 600 years, it was not that much of an issue, you have been protestantized in your thinking that canon agreement even on the most nondogmatic books would equal unity, catholic teaching is far more complicated than that and the church never went haywire on the subject of 3 Maccabees and Psalm 151 when the latin rite left them in a passed over apendix status while many in the East regarded them as canon. The church simply agreed to have slightly different canons on these books and if the larger issues of the filoque and papal infalliability and jurisdiction are ever worked out the subject of the canon would be a rather small one to hammer out.
Well, the Orthodox do not submit to Papal supremacy and are not in communion with Rome. As noted, they have a slightly different canon. If reunion happens, I’m sure that this would be “hammered out”…but how? If the Orthodox adjust their canon so that it is identical to Rome’s then the Orthodox are giving up books that they believe are inspired. Contrary wise, if Rome adjusts its canon to add these books, then it is an admission that Rome has operated, in theory at least, with an incomplete canon for all of these years…a pretty big problem for the One, True, Holy and Apostolic Church. If a compromise is reached whereby the Latin Rite keeps one canon and the newly united formerly Orthodox Churches keep another canon, then you are simply proclaiming that the differences don’t matter.
You miss my point entirely the church coexisted with the east with the Latin and Coptics with one established canon via the COuncils of Africa ie Carthage while the East had a slightly differentl canon for the next 600 years never was this a major issue in the church. The Church has never said the books the East accepts are not inspired or any level of anathama they were simply passed over and relegated in the many catholic bibles as an appendix. Your appraching this from a highly protestant viewpoint the issue of 3 Maccabees is not going to break or make communion we don’t get our truth of have differences with the Greek Ortodox on the basis of 3 Maccabees. The West does not need to adjust its canon and our canon is not incomplete our tradition handed down to us ommits 3 Maccabees as it was not in the manuscripts of the Septugient circulated in the West however in the Greek East it was popular and circulated there and in other parts of the east their Septugient included a some other works that are not important dogmatically. Canon depends heavily on the tradition handed down and it appears the tradition handed down regarding the Septugient was slighlty different in the West and the East. THis issue is not as big as your making it out to be if it was how did the church’s co-exist in communion for 600 years with known different canon. The answer is obvious a different canon as allowed for regarding the Septugient.
Maybe this has already been mentioned, but the list of biblical books from Trent must contain at least the 73 books of the bible used by Roman Church.
Do you have a link to the article from This Rock**?
That is my understanding of it as well. SInce the Orthodox accept all the books in the Septugient we do there is no problem there we simply pass judgement over 3 Maccabees in a non-declared or passed over status like we did in the past. However when protestants reject the dueteros essential to the western church’s received tradition from the African Council an later Florence and Trent we have a major problem there.