Liturgical Churches and the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical Books?

[WisdomTree]

Ok, so, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Assyrian Church of the East Christians all have a larger canon than Protestants.

Our Bibles have anywhere from 73 books (Catholic and EO) to 81 (Ethiopian Orthodox), and none of us would consider those books to be deuterocanonical, but rather, canonical. As they are parts of our canons. I think the Armenian Orthodox even had a book called 3 Corinthians! That's pretty neat.

Corrected that for you.

Do you have any more information on this? I've never heard of it, and it's not listed in the list in Fr. Vazken Movsesian's "The Bible and the Armenian Church" (see the list on the last page in a pdf here). But I don't know very much about the Armenian Apostolic Church.

They used to, but it was a known forgery at the time in order to respond against a popular gnostic heretical text known as the "Epistle of the Corinthians to Paul" which taught that the resurrection was false.

Wikipedia Source
Third Epistle to the Corinthians
Epistle of the Corinthians to Paul

Though I am not completely done yet, I did make a chart of some sort on the various canons accepted by different traditions a while back. Not the best and in need of an update, but here it is:

I read that bible!

I found it quite useful. There is one section in Matthews (I think) which is clearly Anti-Catholic, but apart from that the rest is quite resourceful for both Catholics and Orthodox alike.

 

[buzuxi02]

Eastern Orthodox do not accept apocryphal books. There is no Book of Enoch or Ascension of Moses or Apocalypse of Peter, etc.
Apocryphal books in Orthodoxy are a large body of not accepted writings ranging any where from spurious texts, to pseudographia to gnostic and even disputed texts.
Deuterocanonical books (not to be confused with apocrypha) are accepted writings but usually not read publicly in liturgy although some of these OT writings are considered legitimate extensions of the standard OT books and maybe read under the heading of that prophet. They are scripture like the others and worthy of being read aside from the liturgy, the most notable being Revelation.

 

[dzheremi]

They used to, but it was a known forgery at the time in order to respond against a popular gnostic heretical text known as the "Epistle of the Corinthians to Paul" which taught that the resurrection was false.

Wikipedia Source
Third Epistle to the Corinthians
Epistle of the Corinthians to Paul

Very interesting! Thank you.

 

[ripple the car]

Do you have any more information on this? I've never heard of it, and it's not listed in the list in Fr. Vazken Movsesian's "The Bible and the Armenian Church" (see the list on the last page in a pdf here). But I don't know very much about the Armenian Apostolic Church.

Lemme see.

Third Epistle to the Corinthians - Wikipedia

Looks like it was in and out of favor as canon in Armenia for a while.

3rd Corinthians: The Third Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians

Most modern folks consider it fake, but apparently Saints Aphrahat and Ephrem didn't.

 

[ripple the car]

Corrected that for you.

They used to, but it was a known forgery at the time in order to respond against a popular gnostic heretical text known as the "Epistle of the Corinthians to Paul" which taught that the resurrection was false.

Wikipedia Source
Third Epistle to the Corinthians
Epistle of the Corinthians to Paul

Though I am not completely done yet, I did make a chart of some sort on the various canons accepted by different traditions a while back. Not the best and in need of an update, but here it is:View attachment 265038



I found it quite useful. There is one section in Matthews (I think) which is clearly Anti-Catholic, but apart from that the rest is quite resourceful for both Catholics and Orthodox alike.

That's an awesome chart. Thanks for correcting me on that! I thought it was still in there.

 

[Sketcher]

I am curious and I didn't know where to put this at within the mass of forums here.

Do all liturgical type churches read from the apocrypha/deuterocanonical books?

Having read a Catholic bible all these years, I am kinda overwhelmed by all the different versions of the bible. I have read a little from the NIV, I believe it is the 1984 version (was a while ago and can no longer find any copies of it), as well as a NKJV and the NRSV. I don't particularly have a favorite though and only one of those comes with any of the Apocryphal books.

I guess what I am trying to figure out is, if I am joining a liturgical church, do they put much emphasis on the apocrypha/deuterocanonical books or is reading a sixty-six book bible alright as well? If they are, I'm not sure which to choose.

Not a fan of the KJV. I didn't do well when it came to Shakespeare and the language of the KJV reminds me very much of that!

Whichever you choose, I recommend going with the one your church will be using. It's easier to follow along that way. If the church uses one translation and you really prefer another for your personal reading, parallel Bibles exist. They'll have one translation on one side of the page, and another on the other side.

 

[dzheremi]

Most modern folks consider it fake, but apparently Saints Aphrahat and Ephrem didn't.

Yeah. It makes me wonder if the Armenians originally received it from the Syrians, as I know that the first attempt to translate the scriptures (under HH Catholicos Sahak I, 373-377) was done from a Syriac version. St. Mesrop Mashtots, the inventor of the alphabet and translator of the more 'standard' version from the early 5th century, apparently collected manuscripts from several languages and regions rather than relying on the Syriac version alone, as he could also read Greek. But from the link it also seems that it was not included in the 7th century, but showed up (again?) in later centuries, only to be removed at some point. Strange. Then again, it took Revelation several centuries to be finally accepted throughout all of Christianity, so I guess it's not so strange that the opposite might've happened and it would take several centuries for a book to be purged from a place where it had been present (if not always universally accepted) from an early date.

 

[ripple the car]

Yeah. It makes me wonder if the Armenians originally received it from the Syrians, as I know that the first attempt to translate the scriptures (under HH Catholicos Sahak I, 373-377) was done from a Syriac version. St. Mesrop Mashtots, the inventor of the alphabet and translator of the more 'standard' version from the early 5th century, apparently collected manuscripts from several languages and regions rather than relying on the Syriac version alone, as he could also read Greek. But from the link it also seems that it was not included in the 7th century, but showed up (again?) in later centuries, only to be removed at some point. Strange. Then again, it took Revelation several centuries to be finally accepted throughout all of Christianity, so I guess it's not so strange that the opposite might've happened and it would take several centuries for a book to be purged from a place where it had been present (if not always universally accepted) from an early date.

Yeah, it's an interesting history. I confess that I don't know much about the Armenian Orthodox, either, but they've hung on faithfully, surrounded mostly by Muslims.

 

[jannikitty]

I am curious and I didn't know where to put this at within the mass of forums here.

Do all liturgical type churches read from the apocrypha/deuterocanonical books?

Having read a Catholic bible all these years, I am kinda overwhelmed by all the different versions of the bible. I have read a little from the NIV, I believe it is the 1984 version (was a while ago and can no longer find any copies of it), as well as a NKJV and the NRSV. I don't particularly have a favorite though and only one of those comes with any of the Apocryphal books.

I guess what I am trying to figure out is, if I am joining a liturgical church, do they put much emphasis on the apocrypha/deuterocanonical books or is reading a sixty-six book bible alright as well? If they are, I'm not sure which to choose.

Catholics include the apocrypha but do not emphasize it in their liturgical year. Focus there is mainly on subjects understandable and readable. I am not sure who chose what but this is sort of their system. Many changes in how this is done have happened over the years. I grew up Catholic and spend many years of my adult life (until almost twenty years ago) attending Catholic mass. Actually was once what they call a"Liturgical minister" or "Minister of the Word" which meant as part of their service each week I read something from either the old or new testaments, but never the gospels, that was always read by priests only. Not sure how it is now as I believe deacons can also read the gospels.

Not a fan of the KJV. I didn't do well when it came to Shakespeare and the language of the KJV reminds me very much of that!

 

[PloverWing]

Most Episcopal churches will also use the KJV or RSV for the most part.

The NRSV is what I've encountered most often in Episcopal churches.