Catholic and Orthodox Perspectives on the Canon

Introduction

Protestant Christians are sometimes surprised to learn that the question "What books belong in the Bible?" receives different answers depending on which Christian tradition you ask. The Roman Catholic Old Testament includes seven books (and additions to two others) that Protestants do not regard as canonical. The Eastern Orthodox traditions include some of these and add others. The Ethiopian Orthodox church has the broadest canon of any Christian tradition.

These differences are not merely antiquarian curiosities. They raise fundamental questions about the nature of canonical authority: Who has the authority to determine the canon? Does the church create the canon, or does it recognize it? And how should Protestants relate to fellow Christians who hold a different answer to the question "What is the Bible?"

The Catholic Position

The Roman Catholic Old Testament includes the deuterocanonical books — Tobit, Judith, 1–2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, and additions to Esther and Daniel. These are the books Protestants call the "Apocrypha."

The Catholic position was formally defined at the Council of Trent (1546), partly in response to the Protestant Reformation. Trent declared the deuterocanonical books to be fully canonical — equal in authority to all other biblical books. The council appealed to the practice of the Latin church, which had used Jerome's Vulgate (which included the deuterocanonical books) as its standard Bible for over a millennium.

More fundamentally, the Catholic position rests on a particular understanding of church authority. In Catholic theology, the church — guided by the Holy Spirit through the Magisterium (the teaching authority of the bishops in communion with the Pope) — has the authority to determine definitively which books belong to the canon. The canon is authoritative because the church, with divine guidance, has declared it to be so. The church's authority underwrites the canon's authority.

The Orthodox Position

The Eastern Orthodox traditions have a somewhat less precisely defined canon than either Catholics or Protestants. The Greek Orthodox church generally follows the Septuagint, which includes the deuterocanonical books and additional texts such as 1 Esdras, the Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151, and 3 Maccabees. The Slavic Orthodox tradition includes 2 Esdras and 3 Esdras. The Ethiopian Orthodox church has the broadest canon of any Christian tradition, including books like Jubilees and 1 Enoch.

The Orthodox approach to the canon tends to be less juridical and more liturgical than either the Catholic or Protestant approach. The canon is defined less by conciliar decree than by liturgical practice — the books that the church reads in worship, that shape its prayer life, and that inform its theological reflection are, in practice, the canonical books. This approach has the advantage of reflecting the way the canon actually functions in the life of the church; it has the disadvantage of producing less precise boundaries.

The Protestant Position

The Protestant canon — 39 Old Testament books and 27 New Testament books — was articulated most clearly during the Reformation. The Reformers appealed to several arguments for excluding the deuterocanonical books:

The Hebrew canon. The deuterocanonical books are not part of the Hebrew Bible as received by the Jewish community. The Reformers argued that the Old Testament canon should be determined by the Jewish community that received it, not by the later Christian church that adopted it.

Jerome's testimony. Jerome (c. AD 345–420), the translator of the Vulgate, explicitly distinguished between the books of the Hebrew canon and the additional books, which he regarded as useful for edification but not for establishing doctrine. The Reformers pointed out that even the Catholic tradition's greatest biblical scholar had made the distinction they were defending.

Jesus and the apostles. The New Testament frequently quotes the Old Testament but never directly quotes the deuterocanonical books (though there are possible allusions). The Reformers argued that the canon recognized by Jesus and the apostles should be the canon of the church.

More fundamentally, the Protestant position rests on a different understanding of authority. In Reformed theology, the canon's authority does not derive from the church's declaration but from God's inspiration. The church does not create canonical authority; it recognizes it. The canon is self-authenticating — its authority is intrinsic, not conferred. The church is the servant of the Word, not its master.

Engaging Across Traditions

How should Protestants relate to Catholics and Orthodox Christians who hold a different canon?

First, with respect and honesty. The differences are real and should not be minimized. But they concern the Old Testament canon, not the New. All major Christian traditions agree on the 27-book New Testament — the core of the Christian canonical witness to Christ.

Second, with historical awareness. The deuterocanonical books were widely used in the early church, and the Protestant decision to exclude them was a return to the Hebrew canon, not an innovation. The Protestant position has ancient precedent; so does the Catholic position. Neither side invented its canon.

Third, with theological charity. The differences in canon reflect deeper differences in the understanding of church authority and the relationship between Scripture and tradition. These are important theological disagreements — but they are disagreements among people who confess the same Christ, worship the same God, and share the same core Scriptures.