To my Protestant friends: Difference between Deuterocanonical Books and Apocrypha

[Genesius]

Do you know this episode of South Park where also Moses is in (as a big “sun”)? Don’t know what it’s called, but I would say that there also an Assumption of Moses is assumed.

Nope. Sorry, I consider South Park to be one of the trashiest shows on the hellavision. Rude, crude humor is anything but cute…especially when they cross over into sacreligious territory. And guess who animated shows appeal to most…the future of our youth. JMHO.

 

[Jerusha]

Esdra wrote:
PS: Why are you so harsh? This thread is for information purposes only!
And not only for Protestants, but also for you as a Catholic.

I agree, though. There needs to be more respect for the scriptures that others regard as Scriptures. There is much to be learned from a study of apocrypha. Since this is a Catholic board, I request that non-Catholic posters not use the word “apocrypha” when referring to the Deuterocanon.

Esdra’s respectful posting should be a positive example for all non-Catholics. The BoM, for example is very open-ended for the reader. A deep reading of the book reveals some worthwhile wisdom.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Different groups use different words to describe the same thing. The Bible I use designates certain books as Apocrypha. It is also importnat that while this is a Catholic forum, this is the Non-Catholic section.
If the point is to understand that different groups have different names for the same book, the point is understood by people in the know and the distinction lost on those whose understanding of such matters is lacking.

 

[Jerusha]

the distinction lost on those whose understanding of such matters is lacking.

So we need to make a distinction so that there will be no misunderstandings.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

2 JimDandy:

Are these Books above “real” Apocrypha for you?

Esdra

newadvent.org/cathen/01601a.htm

 

[Esdra]

newadvent.org/cathen/01601a.htm

Okay, so they ***are ***real apocrypha for you.

But what if now an Ethiopian Orthodox Christian or an Armenian Orthodox Christian would walk in and read that? Or an Eastern Orthodox Christian (as even i.e. 3 Maccabees is listed on your website given above)?

He would, just as you did on page 1, tell you insistently that the books in my first post on this page of this thread are NOT apocryphal, but deuterocanonical.

You see my point, Jim?

What is an apocrypha and what a deuterocanonical books depends on which denomination you belong to concerning the Old Testament.
***Only ***with the New Testament you can with certainity say what is apocryphal and what not.

Esdra

 

[Esdra]

Yes. I read most of them several years ago, before I became a Catholic.

That’s great! Then you really got a good insight into this topic!

Sorry, Jerusha, if you thought I was “harsh” in my reply. That was not my intention. What I wrote wasn’t meant for you at all, but for Protestant readers. I apologize for the confusion.

This is MY quote, not Jerusha’s. But never mind! No problem. Apology accepted.

Yes to the Eastern Orthodox. The Greek and Russian canons are different. The most radical difference is in the canon of the Ethiopian Orthodox, one of the Oriental Orthodox Churches.

Yes, together with the Armenian Orthodox Church which has even more “apocryphal” books in their OT than the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.

No, I thought the Eastern Catholic Churches had the same canon as the West. Which have a different canon?

I am pretty sure that I read somwhere here in CAF that the Eastern Catholic Churches have the Eastern Orthodox canons.
So if you are Greek Catholic, you have the Greek Orthodox Canon. If you are Ukrainian Catholic you’ll have the Russian Orthodox Canon (I think. Except the Ukrainian Orthodox Church has its own canon…)
The only difference between a Greek Catholic Church and the Greek Orthodox Church is, IMO, that the Greek Catholics accept the pope as head of Church or as governeror of Christ on Earth (Don’t beat me, if I have used wrong terminolog. hide )

I usually refer Protestants to this Methodist website:

Which Bible? Whose Canon? gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/canon2.stm

Jim Dandy

Thanks for sharing, but I think my list is better. In future you could redirect you Protestants friends to my chart here in CAF?

Esdra

 

[Jim_Dandy]

**Jim Dandy wrote:

No, I thought the Eastern Catholic Churches had the same canon as the West. Which have a different canon?**

Esdra replied:

I am pretty sure that I read somwhere here in CAF that the Eastern Catholic Churches have the Eastern Orthodox canons.

The canon of Scripture was proclaimed a dogma by the Council of Trent. It is therefore binding on the entire Catholic Church, both East and West. There are some Eastern Catholic Churches within the Catholic communion that use books from outside the canon in their liturgy because the Orthodox Churches out of which they were formed use them. This does not constitute those books as Scripture, but some people seem to think it does.

So if you are Greek Catholic, you have the Greek Orthodox Canon. If you are Ukrainian Catholic you’ll have the Russian Orthodox Canon (I think. Except the Ukrainian Orthodox Church has its own canon…)

Greek Catholics, being Catholic, have the Catholic Bible.

The only difference between a Greek Catholic Church and the Greek Orthodox Church is, IMO, that the Greek Catholics accept the pope as head of Church or as governeror of Christ on Earth (Don’t beat me, if I have used wrong terminolog. hide )

There are other disputes between the Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Church, but the Pope is the major one. The Pope is the Vicar (deputy) of Christ: “And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open” Isaiah 22:22 (compare to Matthew 16:18-19).

The Catholic Church determined the canon at the close of the fourth century. Everything inside the original canon is inspired (God-breathed) Scripture; everything outside the original canon is not Scripture (“apocryphal”). The Church founded by Christ for the salvation of the world declared it so, and so it remained for centuries. Others may disagree if they wish. Protestants subtracted from the canon; the Orthodox added to it. But the original canon remains unchanged.

Jim Dandy

Edit to add: Referring to something you wrote previously, Esdra, deuterocanon and deuterocanonical were terms first used by the Catholic Church in the 16th century. Anyone may use them, of course, though I personally have never heard them used by anyone but a Catholic.

 

[Esdra]

Jim Dandy wrote:

Esdra replied:

The canon of Scripture was proclaimed a dogma by the Council of Trent. It is therefore binding on the entire Catholic Church, both East and West. There are some Eastern Catholic Churches within the Catholic communion that use books from outside the canon in their liturgy because the Orthodox Churches out of which they were formed use them. This does not constitute those books as Scripture, but some people seem to think it does.

Greek Catholics, being Catholic, have the Catholic Bible.

There are other disputes between the Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Church, but the Pope is the major one. The Pope is the Vicar (deputy) of Christ: “And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open” Isaiah 22:22 (compare to Matthew 16:18-19).

The Catholic Church determined the canon at the close of the fourth century. Everything inside the original canon is inspired (God-breathed) Scripture; everything outside the original canon is not Scripture (“apocryphal”). The Church founded by Christ for the salvation of the world declared it so, and so it remained for centuries. Others may disagree if they wish. Protestants subtracted from the canon; the Orthodox added to it. But the original canon remains unchanged.

…]

I’ve just posted a thread in the Eastern Catholic section.

They must know!

in Christ,

 

[Elijah_Baley]

I can’t quite tell from this list:

• Are there any Catholic deuterocanonicals not discarded as apocrypha by Protestants?
• Are there any Protestant sections of the Bible resurrected by Luther or someone else which had earlier been discarded as psuedoepigraphical by the Church?

Thanks!

 

[Esdra]

I can’t quite tell from this list:

• Are there any Catholic deuterocanonicals not discarded as apocrypha by Protestants?
• Are there any Protestant sections of the Bible resurrected by Luther or someone else which had earlier been discarded as psuedoepigraphical by the Church?

Thanks!

1. No, ALL deuterocanonical books in Catholic Bibles are regarded as “Apocrypha” by the Protestants.
2. As far as I know, no. Luther included in his Bible translation the “Prayer of Manasseh” in the Apocrypha section (together with the Catholic deuterocanonical books).
   But the “Prayer of Manasseh” was never been regarded as pseudoepigraphal by the CC.
   It, btw., has always been included in Orthodox Bibles at the end of 2 Chronicals.

The only two books of the SEPTUAGINT (LXX) (which was the first “Bible” of the First Christians) that have been regarded as pseudoepigraphal by the Early (Catholic) Church are the “Odes of Solomon” and the “Psalms of Solomon”. (see in the OP!)

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Hi, Esdra

Please, I again ask, post your evidence that any Eastern Catholic Church rejects the canon of the Council of Trent [which is the same as the Canons of the Councils of Rome (A.D. 382), Hippo (393) and Carthage, A.D. 397, 419, et al], or accepts some canon other than the one specified at Trent. Without evidence, your statements are mere personal opinion.

IMJ, you should not post these allegations without the evidence to support them. Others may read them be misled.

I’m willing to be persuaded, but you haven’t supplied the evidence.

Did you forget the Eastern Catholic thread you started? Haven’t seen you there in forever . . .

Peace, Jim Dandy

 

[Esdra]

Hi, Esdra

Please, I again ask, post your evidence that any Eastern Catholic Church rejects the canon of the Council of Trent [which is the same as the Canons of the Councils of Rome (A.D. 382), Hippo (393) and Carthage, A.D. 397, 419, et al], or accepts some canon other than the one specified at Trent. Without evidence, your statements are mere personal opinion.

IMJ, you should not post these allegations without the evidence to support them. Others may read them be misled.

I’m willing to be persuaded, but you haven’t supplied the evidence.

Did you forget the Eastern Catholic thread you started? Haven’t seen you there in forever . . .

Peace, Jim Dandy

Hi

yes, I’ve started it. But I started it, as I don’t know about Eastern Catholicism. And I redirected you there, as I had supposed that the Eastern Catholics may know?
They don’t?
No, I have any proove…, sorry.
But for me it sounds logical: They have divine worship (like the EO) and as far as I got to know reading the one or other thread in the Eastern Catholic section, they hold also Eastern Orthodox Doctrine.
So, why shouldn’t they have the Eastern Orthodox canon as well? You see, I have an Eastern Orthodox (Russian) Bible at home. And there is a liturgical reading plan in it and I have found no other deuterocanonical readings, except those that are also excepted by the Catholic Church.
So, I guess, the additional deuterocanonicals are not even read in the EO!
But I’ll check, as soon as I am at home again! My German translation of the Septuagint arrived today, and there is also an Orthodox liturgical reading plan in!

 

[Esdra]

But I’ll check, as soon as I am at home again! My German translation of the Septuagint arrived today, and there is also an Orthodox liturgical reading plan in!

Hi

now I know for sure: The additional Orthodox Deuterocanonicals in their Bibles are definitely NOT read during divine liturgy/mass. (I again checked in the liturgical reading plan in my German Septuagint!)
The only Deuterocanonicals I found are also Deuterocanonicals in the CC.

So, actually, since the additional Books are not read anyway our small dispute is spurious, isn’t it!

I mean, the EO and the Eastern Catholics can have so many books of the Septuagint in their bible they want. They are not used in mass anyway.
Aren’t Catholics also reading books outside the Canon? I am thinking of the Didache, or the Early Church Fathers, like Jerome or Clement of Rome etc? - But of course also not at mass. For me the situation with the canon of the Eastern Churches (in or not in union with Rome) is the same.