I often see much defense of the Catholic books which are not in Protestant Bibles, however what is the Churches view on books not in our bible but in Orthodox Bibles? I ask this because I recently bought the scholarly Oxford Annotated Bible w Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical books NRSV and it includes all of the books accepted by Catholics but also includes books not accepted by us but by Orthodox. Interestingly I found out three of them are traditionally in an appendix to the Latin Vulgate. 1 and 2 Esdras ( which are 3 and 4 Esdras in the Vulgate appendix as Ezra and Nehemiah are 1 and 2 Esdras in the Vulgate.) Also the Prayer of Mannaseh(which is in the appendix as well), Psalm 151, and 3 and 4 Maccabees. I was just wondering what the Churches stance is on these texts, is it considered bad for a Catholic to read them? Thanks.
Waiting on the answers to the OP
From what i understand, eastern Catholics already have those books in their bibles. So I’m assuming it’s a non issue.
Catholic church doesnt view “inspired” the same way protestants do. Just because it’s not in the canon doesn’t mean it isn’t inspired material.
The fact that they’ve been appended to editions of the Vulgate should tell you that there is no problem with Catholics reading these books. Eastern Catholics even use some of these texts in their divine liturgy.
Hope this article explains it:
In addition to this, there is the fact that Greek Orthodox Churches (especially) have a more fluid (less formal or legalistic) notion of how the idea of a “canonical book” should be applied. For example, in the Greek Orthodox Liturgy, they have NEVER read from the Book of Revelation. And, because of this, many modern Greeks will claim that Revelation is “not canonical.” …because they do not read from it in their Greek Liturgy. Now, the fact that the Russian Orthodox Church does read from Revelation in their, Russian Liturgy is beside the point. So, for the Eastern Orthodox, “canonical” does not really refer to a univesally-agreed upon canon, but to the common regional practice of specific Churches. Uunfortunately, this has led some modern Greek and Antiochian Orthodox to claim that the Book of Revelation is “not inspired” and/or “not binding” on them, which is a modernist revision (a heretical novelty), which no ancient Greek or Antiochian would ever claim. For, what their forefathers would say is that Revelation (or another book like it) is still Divinely inspired, but just not canonical (i.e., not approved for reading at their Liturgy). And, for those Easterners who did recognze the binding authority of the Cathaginian canon, they would of course say that Revelation is universally binding (i.e., canonical in a universal sense), but simply not part of their local Liturgical canon.
Do you have any reference backing up the above claim? I’ve never heard of it before.
Neither have I. Though I’m pretty sure that it is not included in the Syriac (Oriental Orthodox) canon. Revelation was definitely contested in the early Church.