coptichymns.net - Sharing the Joy of Coptic Hymns Around the World

TheLivingWater

posted on Feb 08, 2007 - 05:21 AM

How do the Ethiopian Orthodox believers differ from the Coptic Orthodox believers theologically? I was under the impression that the two were very similar, but I was reading an article on Wikipedia that says that the Ethiopian Orthodox Church recognizes Jubilees, Book of Enoch, the Shepherd of Hermas, 1 Clement, and Acts of Paul, all of which are part of the New Testament Apocrypha. Assuming this is true, then they must have some theological differences. Any ideas?

Here's the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament_apocrypha

_________________
"He who is full loathes honey, but to the hungry even what is bitter tastes sweet." Proverbs 27:7

Joined: Feb 05, 2007 | Posts: 59

Meghalo05

posted on Feb 08, 2007 - 05:46 AM

I think the important thing to realize is that all though these books are not canonical in our church, this does not mean they are heretical. I know for a fact many clergymen who indeed quote these non-canonical books, specifically the Shepherd of Hermas many times. HG Bishop Yousef has quoted from the Shepherd of Hermas in many occasions in his articles. The church synexarium itself uses information/stories from non-canonical books, such as the Protoevangelium of James in describing the role of Salome and Joseph in the Nativity of our Lord. So I think that its not that they are heretical or nonorthodox its just that they are not canonical in our church, and their authenticity might not be known.
I also believe the Eritreans have the didascalia or the didache in the New Testament. Although the Didascalia is not present in the canonized New Testament, it is still an accepted document/writing of our Church Fathers, and is a book which contains many instructions to the doctrines/dogmas of the church. I think the culture, and the opinion of the specific autocephalous church towards these added books has a large role also. As long as they are not heretical, I think the other Oriental Orthodox churches should not mind, as this is their somewhat unique tradition. Just my two cents. Someone correct me if I am wrong, and sorry for rambling.

Pray fo my weakness

_________________
Abraham Ghattas

Joined: Jan 18, 2005 | Posts: 304
Location: St. Mary and St. Mark Coptic Orthodox Church of Indianapolis, IN

TheLivingWater

posted on Feb 08, 2007 - 06:02 AM

Thanks Meghalo. So from what I understand, the two theologies do not differ in essence, it's a mere issue of tradition then. And concerning non-canonical books, how should one practice discernment if some of the ideas presented are false, while bits and pieces of the information may be true?

_________________
"He who is full loathes honey, but to the hungry even what is bitter tastes sweet." Proverbs 27:7

Joined: Feb 05, 2007 | Posts: 59

Meghalo05

posted on Feb 08, 2007 - 06:26 AM

I believe the act of discernment of right and wrong in non-canonical books should be left to our fathers the clergymen, as they are the strongest in faith and most wise. It is very easy to accept something that may sound like the correct doctrine, but technically is something pseudobiblical. This is something which our father Saint Paul warned us about. If our church fathers quoted from it then we should believe that this is valid, if not we should carry on. The history and themes of these noncanonical books is very complex, and one can easily get lost, and deceived. Just stick to the canonical books in the true Coptic bible, and let this serve as your guide. Learn about the non-canonical books through the words, sayings, and teachings of our fathers who have cited them in their literary works.

Pray for me

Joined: Jan 18, 2005 | Posts: 304
Location: St. Mary and St. Mark Coptic Orthodox Church of Indianapolis, IN

TheLivingWater

posted on Feb 08, 2007 - 06:30 AM

Thank you for your insight Meghalo.

_________________
"He who is full loathes honey, but to the hungry even what is bitter tastes sweet." Proverbs 27:7

Joined: Feb 05, 2007 | Posts: 59

exGreek

posted on Feb 08, 2007 - 11:03 AM

Also.....the Emperor Haile Selassie I plays a big role in Ethiopian Orthodox "hagiography", if you will. He's almost considered a saint. He was legendarily descended from King Solomon and in some circles is almost worshipped....there seems to be no clear and bold demarcation between some Ethiopian Orthodox circles and Rastafarianism....though the Ethiopian Patriarch has strongly warned against too much devotion to him.

Joined: Oct 28, 2004 | Posts: 1381
Location: Spring Lake, Michigan

solan

posted on Feb 09, 2007 - 10:53 AM

exGreek,

As far as my knowledge goes, Emperor Haile Selassie I is not canonized and hence not considered as a saint by the Ethiopian Orthodox church. My references told me that he also played no role in "hagiography" as you put it. In fact, I have read that the Ethiopian Orthodox church has preached the word of God, baptised and converted many Rastas to Orthodox christianity.

Regards,

Solan

Joined: Dec 13, 2006 | Posts: 27

exGreek

posted on Feb 09, 2007 - 03:53 PM

*walks-away-with-tail-between-legs*.....sowwy

Joined: Oct 28, 2004 | Posts: 1381
Location: Spring Lake, Michigan

Biboboy

posted on Feb 10, 2007 - 03:00 PM

From TheLivingWater:How do the Ethiopian Orthodox believers differ from the Coptic Orthodox believers theologically? I was under the impression that the two were very similar, but I was reading an article on Wikipedia that says that the Ethiopian Orthodox Church recognizes Jubilees, Book of Enoch, the Shepherd of Hermas, 1 Clement, and Acts of Paul, all of which are part of the New Testament Apocrypha. Assuming this is true, then they must have some theological differences. Any ideas?

Here's the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament_apocrypha

Agape,

Contrary to what's written in wikipedia, which is not a great source for accurate info (because anyone could write whatever they think and it is not peer-reviewed), the Ethiopians do not recognize the books mentioned above as part of the canon. Some of the books (e.g. Shepherd of Hermas) is considered useful, spiritual reading, but they're not part of the canon.

Also, to argue that people in a particular church read and accept some books because its translated to that language or because its mentioned by a church father, is illogical. All it means is that someone translated it, and it may have been used by a particular group of people, but it doesn't mean that it was accepted by the whole church - so it's wrong to attribute such a generalization to everyone.

Here's a concrete e.g. the Psuedo-Gospel of Judas was translated from Greek to Coptic. This does not mean that the Coptic Orthodox Church accepts it or some people in the church read it for spiritual benefit. All it means is that there's some group of Gnostics who lived in Egypt, translated this text, and read it, but it was only used by that community. So just like you can't make the generalization that "all Copts believe in the Pseudo-Gospel of Judas because it was translated to Coptic," you likewise can't make a generalization that "all Ethiopians believe in the Apocalypse of Enoch because it was translated to Ethiopian."

_________________
"Our hearts are restless until they find rest in You, Lord" (St. Augustine, Confessions, I, 1).

"Pray gently and calmly,
Chant hymns with understanding and rhythm;
Then you will soar like a young eagle
High in the heavens"
+ St. Evagrius the Solitary, On Prayer, 82.

In Christ,
Bishoy
HCOC Member


+ To Protect and Preserve +

HCOC: Sing it! Live it! Love it!

Questions or comments on the copticheritage.org website? E-mail me!

Joined: Sep 28, 2004 | Posts: 722

mikokiko

posted on Feb 10, 2007 - 04:05 PM

Just a question:
Why is it we still quote these apocryphal books if we are not certain of their authenticity?

Joined: Feb 11, 2003 | Posts: 999

Iqbal

posted on Feb 10, 2007 - 06:55 PM

Hi Biboboy,

Contrary to what's written in wikipedia, which is not a great source for accurate info (because anyone could write whatever they think and it is not peer-reviewed), the Ethiopians do not recognize the books mentioned above as part of the canon.

Whilst that may be true in regard to the Shepherd of Hermas and the Acts of Paul, it is certainly not true in regard to the Book of Enoch and the Book of Jubilees. Both these books are most certainly recognised as canonical Old Testament books by the EOTC as per the official source, A Short History of the Faith and Order of the EOTC, which was published by the EOTC Holy Synod in 1983 at Addis Ababa.

Joined: Nov 14, 2004 | Posts: 124

solan

posted on Feb 12, 2007 - 09:53 AM

Iqbal,

In the Ethiopian Orthodox bible, which contains 81 books, there are 13 non cannonical old testament additions to the 66 books. The book of Enoch and Jubilees are among the 13 books. And in the EOTC bible it is clearly indicated that these additions are DEUTROCANNONICAL and not cannonical.

Regards,

solan

Joined: Dec 13, 2006 | Posts: 27

Iqbal

posted on Feb 12, 2007 - 07:48 PM

Hi Solan,

The book of Enoch and Jubilees are among the 13 books. And in the EOTC bible it is clearly indicated that these additions are DEUTROCANNONICAL and not cannonical.

I have not seen an EOTC Bible--the source I referred to was an official source published by the Holy Synod of the EOTC little over 20 years ago. Nevertheless, if, as you say, the additional books are classified as [i]Deuterocanonical[/i ]books, then this only goes to prove my point.

Deuterocanonical does not mean "not canonical". It is simply a term that draws an artificial distinction between those books of the "protocanon"--those books initially and widely accepted as canon, and those of the "second canon"--those books eventually accepted as being canonical. I think you are confusing the term "deuterocanonical" with the term "apocrypha".

-Iqbal

Joined: Nov 14, 2004 | Posts: 124