Deuterocanonicals?

[coolgirl02]

Hi everyone. Do Episcopalians recognize the Deuterocanonicals as scripture like the Catholics do?

[angli_fan]

Welcome to EV, coolgirl!

I believe the last time Anglicans (called Episcopalians in the US) stated an official position on the Deuterocanonical, or Apocryphal books was in the 39 Articles of Religion established by the Church of England in 1563. They read, in part:

--------------------------

VI. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.
Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.

Of the Names and Number of the Canonical Books.
Genesis, The First Book of Samuel, The Book of Esther,
Exodus, The Second Book of Samuel, The Book of Job,
Leviticus, The First Book of Kings, The Psalms,
Numbers, The Second Book of Kings, The Proverbs,
Deuteronomy, The First Book of Chronicles, Ecclesiastes or Preacher,
Joshua, The Second Book of Chronicles, Cantica, or Songs of Solomon,
Judges, The First Book of Esdras, Four Prophets the greater,
Ruth, The Second Book of Esdras, Twelve Prophets the less.

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

All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account them Canonical.

--------------------------

We read selections from these books in our schedule of Scripture reading, alongside the Old and New Testaments. So yes, we do use them, but not for "proof-texting", so to speak.

I hope that answers your question.

Pax;

angli_fan (forum moderator)

[angli_fan]

I forgot to add that a lot of good basic information on Anglican/Episcopal beliefs & practices can be found here:

www.anglicansonline.org/basics/index.html

[srigdon]

According to my rector, the answer is no. When a priest takes a vow that he/she believes the Old Testament is the Word of God, it does not include he Apocrypha.

I'm guessing that the vast majority of Catholics and non-Catholics are thoroughly unaware of this doctrinal difference. I doubt many care about it, either.

As I understand it, the reason for the difference is that the Hebrew Bible does not include the Apocrypha, but the Septuagint (the Greek version of the OT) does.

[Swick]

The canon was not authoritatively closed in New Testament times; Aramaic speaking Jews in the Holy Land read their scriptures in Hebrew, while Jews in the dispesion that didn't know Hebrew read them in a Greek translation, commonly called the Septuagint, which contained additional books not used by Hebrew speaking Jews. As I understand it, this Greek translation was widely used by the early Christians, which was a reason for the Jewish leaders to officially declare which books comprised their Bible, which were only those in the shorter Hebrew canon.

Anglicans do not consider the Apocrypha to be part of the Old Testament. If the first lesson is read at either the Eucharist or Morning Prayer is from the Apocrypha however, it's still announced the same way an Old Testament reading would be, which blurrs the distinction.