A Catholic Bible question from a non-Catholic

[DaveAllen]

Hi there, I have a question for you. First of all, I’m not Catholic, so hopefully my question won’t offend anyone.

I will be chaperoning a group of teens that will be doing some inner city mission work in Chicago during their spring break and while walking through our local outlet mall yesterday getting some supplies, I noticed a new religious store. I went in and it turns out it is a Catholic store. I looked around for a bit and while browsing the books, I saw a Bible that said Official Catholic Version (or something to that effect) I picked it up and looked through it.

I knew the books of the New Testament, but it appeared that there were six or seven Old Testament books that I didn’t recognize.

My question is, do Catholics use a different Bible than I do?

Thanks in advance for any responses.

God Bless, Dave

 

[SyCarl]

I am not a Catholic but I think I can answer your question. The Catholic Bible contains 7 more books in the Old Testament. As well there are additions to Esther and Daniel. The difference arises from what the basis used for the Old Testament canon. The Catholic Church uses the canon in the Septuagint, which is a Greek Translation of the Old Testament done in Alexandria a couple of centuries before Christ. It included the additional books. Most Protestants use the Jewish canon adopted in Palestine around the end of the first century.

There were disputes as to the status of the extra books which are called Deuterocanonical by Catholic and the Apocrypha by Protestants. A number of local church councils (Hippo, Carthage and Rome) adopted most of the Septuagint canon. Not being ecumenical councils, these determinations were not binding although it is asserted that approval by the Pope made them so. They were included in the Latin Vulgate by Jerome although he questioned their canonicity. There were a number of opinions on the exact status of the books until the Reformation. Some thought the books could be used for doctrine and others only for devotional reading.

When Martin Luther translated the Bible into German he used the Palestinian canon and included the extra bools in a separate section. This was also done in early English translations. The books were later dropped from English transaltion but are now being included by some again in a separate section. At the Council of Trent in the 16th century, the Deutercanonical books were definitively confirmed as canonical for the Catholic Church. Since then Protetstants have accused Catholics of adding books to the Bible and Catholics have said that Protestants removed books.

The canon of the Orthodox churches actually contains even more books from the Septuagint.

 

[Mister_De]

Simple non-detailed answer: Martin Luther removed 7 books from the bible.

Detailed answer:
thecatholictreasurechest.com/deuter.htm

 

[Penitus]

I am not a Catholic but I think I can answer your question. The Catholic Bible contains 7 more books in the Old Testament. As well there are additions to Esther and Daniel. The difference arises from what the basis used for the Old Testament canon. The Catholic Church uses the canon in the Septuagint, which is a Greek Translation of the Old Testament done in Alexandria a couple of centuries before Christ. It included the additional books. Most Protestants use the Jewish canon adopted in Palestine around the end of the first century.

There were disputes as to the status of the extra books which are called Deuterocanonical by Catholic and the Apocrypha by Protestants. A number of local church councils (Hippo, Carthage and Rome) adopted most of the Septuagint canon. Not being ecumenical councils, these determinations were not binding although it is asserted that approval by the Pope made them so. They were included in the Latin Vulgate by Jerome although he questioned their canonicity. There were a number of opinions on the exact status of the books until the Reformation. Some thought the books could be used for doctrine and others only for devotional reading.

When Martin Luther translated the Bible into German he used the Palestinian canon and included the extra bools in a separate section. This was also done in early English translations. The books were later dropped from English transaltion but are now being included by some again in a separate section. At the Council of Trent in the 16th century, the Deutercanonical books were definitively confirmed as canonical for the Catholic Church. Since then Protetstants have accused Catholics of adding books to the Bible and Catholics have said that Protestants removed books.

The canon of the Orthodox churches actually contains even more books from the Septuagint.

That’s an excellent, respectful unbiased middle of the road response. Thanks!

 

[MrS]

I am not a Catholic but I think I can answer your question. The Catholic Bible contains 7 more books in the Old Testament. As well there are additions to Esther and Daniel. The difference arises from what the basis used for the Old Testament canon. The Catholic Church uses the canon in the Septuagint, which is a Greek Translation of the Old Testament done in Alexandria a couple of centuries before Christ. It included the additional books. Most Protestants use the Jewish canon adopted in Palestine around the end of the first century.

There were disputes as to the status of the extra books which are called Deuterocanonical by Catholic and the Apocrypha by Protestants. A number of local church councils (Hippo, Carthage and Rome) adopted most of the Septuagint canon. Not being ecumenical councils, these determinations were not binding although it is asserted that approval by the Pope made them so. They were included in the Latin Vulgate by Jerome although he questioned their canonicity. There were a number of opinions on the exact status of the books until the Reformation. Some thought the books could be used for doctrine and others only for devotional reading.

When Martin Luther translated the Bible into German he used the Palestinian canon and included the extra bools in a separate section. This was also done in early English translations. The books were later dropped from English transaltion but are now being included by some again in a separate section. At the Council of Trent in the 16th century, the Deutercanonical books were definitively confirmed as canonical for the Catholic Church. Since then Protetstants have accused Catholics of adding books to the Bible and Catholics have said that Protestants removed books.

[1] I understand the way you presented your answer. However. The Catholic Bible does NOT contain more books. The Catholic Bible has not added or subtracted books since the 4th century when all the possible writings were under scrutiny, and those which passed hundreds of years of discussion were formally canonized.

Future additions or substractions must be looked at with a discernment as to why they were removed, and by whom.

[2] Giving the idea that there was a “Jewish Canon” in the late 1st Century is off the mark. That council is recognized as having no authority or intent to establish a canon. It met to consider what to do with the “upstart” religion that threatened their beliefs and which was experienced great growth.

Reformers have, for the most part, chosen to side with those who opposed Christianity in their selection of which books are true. Hhmmm.

[3] Opinion will always be present. However, the Catholic Church, the final Authority in all things of faith and morals (for ALL Christians in all ages, everywhere) had but one opinion. It has not changed.

[4] The Council of Trent, in answer to the heresies arising from the Reformation, and the reformers, re-affirmed the position(s) of the only Church founded by Jesus Christ. These included the Canon, Justification etc etc…

 

[MrS]

This site will give you info and access to a reference work produced on this very topic.

handsonapologetics.com/

It is a very readable work. It should be read by all…Catholics and non-Catholics alike… who question the number of books which belong in the Catholic Bible… there should be no tolerance of Bibles which are partial.

On another note…

The Lord reminded the Pharisees and the Sadducees that if they only accepted part of the Scriptures, then they should at least live according to the books they claimed to be true.

I remind us all that Catholic and non-Catholic have the same New Testament. We agree on these books as true.

Thus, we should all live according to these books and build on that common bond.

I suggest we start with John 6

 

[Paul2274]

As Christians we (Catholics and Protestants) can agree that the Holy Spirit directs and inspires the writings in the Bible. Right?

The New Testament in both Bible translations are the same, as to the books included, but the difference is in the Old Testament, by the 7 books excluded in the Protestant Bible translations.

Well, knowing that fact… and being intelligent…

Are Protestants saying that the Holy Spirit is “Right” with the New Testament and He got it “Wrong” with the Old Testament?
It really seems that way to me. Remember the Bible is a Catholic Book. I am a Catholic and I think the Holy Spirit got it “Right” in my book!

Paul

 

[Newbie2]

Well…it’s right in both books, it’s just more right in the Catholic version.

 

[utunumsint]

Hi there, I have a question for you. First of all, I’m not Catholic, so hopefully my question won’t offend anyone.

I will be chaperoning a group of teens that will be doing some inner city mission work in Chicago during their spring break and while walking through our local outlet mall yesterday getting some supplies, I noticed a new religious store. I went in and it turns out it is a Catholic store. I looked around for a bit and while browsing the books, I saw a Bible that said Official Catholic Version (or something to that effect) I picked it up and looked through it.

I knew the books of the New Testament, but it appeared that there were six or seven Old Testament books that I didn’t recognize.

My question is, do Catholics use a different Bible than I do?

Thanks in advance for any responses.

God Bless, Dave

There is great stuff in the seven books. For example, 1st and 2nd Maccabees really fills in the historical gap after the exil to Jesus’ day. There is also references to the origins of serveral Jewish festivals mentioned in the New Testament. You can also find beautiful Wisdom litterature in Sirach. In short, you get a good overview of the religious, spiritual, and political landscape at the time of Jesus through these writtings. I highly recommend reading them, even if you don’t see them as inspired.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Ignatius]

Hi there, I have a question for you. First of all, I’m not Catholic, so hopefully my question won’t offend anyone.

I will be chaperoning a group of teens that will be doing some inner city mission work in Chicago during their spring break and while walking through our local outlet mall yesterday getting some supplies, I noticed a new religious store. I went in and it turns out it is a Catholic store. I looked around for a bit and while browsing the books, I saw a Bible that said Official Catholic Version (or something to that effect) I picked it up and looked through it.

I knew the books of the New Testament, but it appeared that there were six or seven Old Testament books that I didn’t recognize.

My question is, do Catholics use a different Bible than I do?

Thanks in advance for any responses.

God Bless, Dave

Hi Dave, and welcome to Catholic Forums. The Catholic Church uses the version of the Bible that was used at the time of Christ. That is the Septuagent version. In fact, all of those OT books were included in all bibles up until about the 1830’s when the Protestants removed them. Although some questions them, no one was brash enough to change the Canon of Scripture which had been used since before Christ. If you want to check, get any OT published before the 1800’s and you will see that they are in there.

Now I have always wondered, what revelation was given in the 1800’s that gave these guys the authority to remove books from the bible? That is one of the main reasons why I left protestantism. I also found out that 80% of all Christians have these books, it is only the protestants which messed with the Canon of the Holy Scriptures. The Gospel of John says not to add or remove anything from Scripture and that’s what they did in the 1800’s. It’s just not right.

I hope this answers your question.

Your servant in Christ.

 

[inthecloud]

The King James original 1611 version had them, so Luthers German Bible and the Geneva Bible.
For ecomomic reasons Protestant Bible societies took them out in the 1800s.
But the CC did took some books out of the Septuagint canon. about seven, at Trent.
The Eastern Orthodox Bibles have 14 more books that modern Protestant Bibles, the Catholic have 7 more books.
Look at Bible Canon in Wikipedia. To get a idea.

 

[MrS]

The King James original 1611 version had them, so Luthers German Bible and the Geneva Bible.
For ecomomic reasons Protestant Bible societies took them out in the 1800s.
But the CC did took some books out of the Septuagint canon. about seven, at Trent.
The Eastern Orthodox Bibles have 14 more books that modern Protestant Bibles, the Catholic have 7 more books.
Look at Bible Canon in Wikipedia. To get a idea.

I think you have it backwards.

Since the Cattholic Bible came first, it appears that the protestant “choice” of books in “their choice” of Bible, is missing 7 books.

And since they have no divine authority to declare canon… their choice should be pointed out as often as possible.
.

 

[inthecloud]

Well my point is that not even the reformers dared to print Bibles with out those books them. The challenged those books but the classic protestant bibles had those books inside until the XIX century.

About Trent. Some of the more “lying for Jesus” type fundies charge the Chruch to add seven books at Trent.
The Church took OUT seven books at Trent.
But the Church made the Bible canon so it was Her prerrogative to do so. The EO have even more books in their Bibles.

 

[Todd_Easton]

My question is, do Catholics use a different Bible than I do?

Yes. The “Protestant” Bible is a little different from the Catholic Bible; the Catholic Bible contains more inspired Jewish books in the Old Testament. These books were written during the time between the latest book in the “Protestant” Old Testament and the first of our New Testament. In these books one can see some developments in Judaism concerning the afterlife:

In 2 Maccabees 12:38-46, the efficacy of prayers and sacrifices for the dead is mentioned, supporting the Catholic teachings on the Communion of Saints, Purgatory and indulgences. (2 Timothy 1:18)
In 2 Maccabees 15:11-16, the righteous dead praying for the living is mentioned, supporting the Catholic teaching on the Intercession of the Saints. (Luke 16:27)
In Sirach 46:20 and Sirach 48:14, the righteous dead working miracles for the living is mentioned, supporting the Catholic teaching on the Intercession of the Saints. (1 Samuel 28:14; 2 Kings 13:21)

 

[inthecloud]

I add my favorite Wisdom, especially Wisdom chapter 2.

 

[Jimzz12]

I get the basic feeling that if it wasn’t written in Hebrew, then the Jewish revisors threw it out, which is really a shame consider books like Tobit were written in Aramaic. Also to my knowledge some other Old Testament books had sections written in Aramaic, and a predominance of Greek.

Which book has the writing on the wall? I know the writing on the wall was Aramaic, but that book was written in Hebrew.

 

[Devare]

Simple non-detailed answer: Martin Luther removed 7 books from the bible.

Detailed answer:
thecatholictreasurechest.com/deuter.htm

I believe the “martin luther” argument is incorrect and biased through hatred (luther was closest to being a catholic than any other protestant in my opinion).
If luther wanted to remove the apocrypha, he ALSO wanted to remove/modify non-apocrypha books:

“The history of Jonah is so monstrous that it is absolutely incredible.” ('The Facts About Luther, O’Hare, TAN Books, 1987, p. 202.)

“The book of Esther I toss into the Elbe. I am such an enemy to the book of Esther that I wish it did not exist, for it Judaizes too much and has in it a great deal of heathenish foolishness.” (Ibid.)

“Of very little worth is the Book of Baruch, whoever the worthy Baruch might be.” (Ibid.)

“…the epistle of St. James is an epistle full of straw, because it contains nothing evangelical.” (‘Preface to the New Testament,’ ed. Dillenberger, p. 19.)

I want to know: was there a section of the Bible that Martin Luther even LIKED? Ah yes, Luther thought it suffice for his catechism to replace the Bible.

“Moreover, that it is most solemnly and strictly commanded that we must be baptized or we cannot be saved…” - Martin Luther
Source: iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/catechism/web/cat-13.html

Catholic.com actually has an article about this:

"The Christian belief that baptism is necessary for salvation is so unshakable that even the Protestant Martin Luther affirmed the necessity of baptism. He wrote: ‘Baptism is no human plaything but is instituted by God himself. Moreover, it is solemnly and strictly commanded that we must be baptized or we shall not be saved. We are not to regard it as an indifferent matter, then, like putting on a new red coat. It is of the greatest importance that we regard baptism as excellent, glorious, and exalted’ "(Large Catechism 4:6).
Source: catholic.com/library/necessity_of_baptism.asp

Martin Luther was… a very confused man, I don’t want to point a finger, but, I don’t think he was ever saved, only God truly knows of course:

2 Corinthians 12:2 I know a man in Christ: above fourteen years ago (whether in the body, I know not, or out of the body, I know not: God knoweth), such a one caught up to the third heaven.