Catholic bible and the Deuterocanon

  • Thread starter Thread starter Wandile
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Anna,
You may have noticed that I have different styles of presenting information. In this particular link…I hope someone tries to prove me wrong…they won’t succeed. You can imagine how much more it means to someone that goes on a journey to prove me wrong in terms of learning that I am correct than if they were spoon fed. I hope someone looks for ways to prove me wrong and then the links will appear.🙂
Thanks for the clarification. Is it your position that the NRSV is inspired or that it is not? Just curious.

Peace,
Anna
 
The reason varies. In my experience it is a spin. The truth is that Protestants without any authority took and translated the Catholic Bible and disseminated it. The DC were part of that Bible. . . .
See my post #6. Fast forward to present day: the Catholic Church adopted the RSV and NRSV—translations formerly used primarily by non-Catholics. Why doesn’t the Catholic Church use English translations of Catholic Bibles (such as St. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate) in the CCC? What does the Catholic adoption of the RSV and NRSV say about the issue of authority?

Peace,
Anna
Did you answer the above? Maybe I missed your response. 🤷

Peace,
Anna
 
What you are saying is that you base your belief on a tradtion of man that is 500 years old that have no DC that you choose to call Apocrypha. Apocrypha just means hidden. They were removed because of the cost of printing…

No, I’m not saying that at all. I’m saying that the apocrypha is not the fully inspired Word of God. Even St. Jerome (a doctor of the Roman Catholic church) recommended that the apocrypha be included last in the Latin Vulgate after translation because of the inconsistencies with Scripture.
.
In other words, printers removed the Apocrypha from the Bible, not any church.
And, neither was the Douray Rheims version.👍
 
And, neither was the Douray Rheims version.👍
Well I think you are missing the point that Coptic Christian was trying to make. He was just trying to point out that simply because the NRSV is accepted and used does not mean that it is the reason we include the DC nor is it anything authoritative. It’s just a good translation.

The fact is that even amongst the Dead Sea scrolls, besides the other commentaries and writings found, there was a Septugiant version of the OT in there and it contained the DC. Also the oldest bibles in the world contained the DC. To add gasoline to fire, the list of books decide at the 4th century councils are startlingly identical to the Catholic Canon of the bible. The books are 100% inspired. 👍

Here are some links you can check out :

This one deals with the views of the early church fathers on the DC
matt1618.freeyellow.com/deut.html

This one deals with the Dead Sea Scrolls
doxa.ws/Messiah/Lxx_mt.html
 
The ACNA would.
Omar,
Interesting to know. I think Anglo Catholics in the Anglican Communion are more likely to accept the Catholic Canon. Though that is not always the case. There have been discussions on other forums among Anglicans; and the beliefs regarding the “inspired” Canon varied quite a bit.

It’s an interesting topic. One thing that has made an impression upon me is the fact that Deuterocanonical Books are quoted/referenced in the N.T.

There is a list on scripturecatholic.com:

DEUTEROCANONICAL BOOKS
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
Copyright 2001 - 2007 © by John Salza. All Rights Reserved.
Link: scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html

Salza makes the point that the Jewish councils that rejected the DC were the same councils that rejected the entire N. T. Canon.

Peace to you, my fellow Anglican, :signofcross:
Anna
 
.

To add gasoline to fire, the list of books decide at the 4th century councils are startlingly identical to the Catholic Canon of the bible. The books are 100% inspired.
When St. Jerome translated the Latin Vulgate, his intention was NOT to include those 7 books with the OT. It’s funny that his (a doctor of the Church who had the opportunity to deeply read and study Scripture) recommendation was not given consideration.
 
Anna Scott;8804559:
Really? I know that they were never referenced by Jesus in the Gospels. Where in the NT are they referenced?
Omar,

You may want to listen to Jimmy Akin…he used to be Protestant…he says you are wrong…Jesus was speaking Aramaic and the Gospel writers did qoute the Septuagint. Listen to Jimmy.🙂

jimmyakin.org/2011/11/did-jesus-quote-the-deuterocanonicals-receiving-the-holy-spirit-in-acts-should-i-quit-my-job-at-hospital.html
 
Omar Gatskill;8806310:
Jesus Quotes and paraphrases some of the Deuterocanonicals over 20 times in the New Testament. Here is a link with most of the quotes that Jesus made :

scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html
Did you listen to Jimmy Akin? These are from other writers writing in Greek and we don’t know for sure what Jesus spoke…listen to Jimmy and rethink this. I like the information however we should not be Protestant in our thinking and take information to prove what we want to be true. We should say what is true. Jimmy points this out.🙂
 
Friends, when you use the quote button, please don’t write your response inside the quote of someone else. This can result in quotes being attributed to the wrong person.:eek:

I did not
say, “I know that they were never referenced by Jesus in the Gospels. Where in the NT are they referenced?” That is Omar Gatskill’s quote.
That is why the Church is the Pillar and Foundation of the truth and we never read…

Jerome, Luther, Calvin, King Henry VIII, Augustine, Omar or any other is the pillar and foundation of the truth…😃
**CopticChristian, in your post #31, you attributed a quote to me, Anna Scott, that belongs to Omar Gatskill.

CopticChristian, in your post #33, You attributed a quote to Omar Gatskill that belongs to Wandile. **
Jesus Quotes and paraphrases some of the Deuterocanonicals over 20 times in the New Testament. Here is a link with most of the quotes that Jesus made :

scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html
Wandle, in your post #32, you attributed a quote to me, Anna Scott, that belongs to Omar Gatskill.
Really? I know that they were never referenced by Jesus in the Gospels. Where in the NT are they referenced?
This is what I, Anna Scott, said about the N.T. and Deuterocanonical Books:
Omar,
Interesting to know. I think Anglo Catholics in the Anglican Communion are more likely to accept the Catholic Canon. Though that is not always the case. There have been discussions on other forums among Anglicans; and the beliefs regarding the “inspired” Canon varied quite a bit.

It’s an interesting topic. One thing that has made an impression upon me is the fact that Deuterocanonical Books are quoted/referenced in the N.T.

There is a list on scripturecatholic.com:

DEUTEROCANONICAL BOOKS
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
Copyright 2001 - 2007 © by John Salza. All Rights Reserved.
Link: scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html

Salza makes the point that the Jewish councils that rejected the DC were the same councils that rejected the entire N. T. Canon.

Peace to you, my fellow Anglican, :signofcross:
Anna
Peace, 🙂
Anna
 
Friends, when you use the quote button, please don’t write your response inside the quote of someone else. This can result in quotes being attributed to the wrong person.:eek:

I did not
say, “I know that they were never referenced by Jesus in the Gospels. Where in the NT are they referenced?” That is Omar Gatskill’s quote.

**CopticChristian, in your post #31, you attributed a quote to me, Anna Scott, that belongs to Omar Gatskill.

CopticChristian, in your post #33, You attributed a quote to Omar Gatskill that belongs to Wandile. **

Wandle, in your post #32, you attributed a quote to me, Anna Scott, that belongs to Omar Gatskill.

This is what I, Anna Scott, said about the N.T. and Deuterocanonical Books:


Peace, 🙂
Anna
Anna,

I appreciate your clarity. Please reread post 31, note I did not attribute anything to you. Your name appears. It is addressed as you see to “Omar” not Anna.
 
Friends, when you use the quote button, please don’t write your response inside the quote of someone else. This can result in quotes being attributed to the wrong person.:eek:

I did not
say, “I know that they were never referenced by Jesus in the Gospels. Where in the NT are they referenced?” That is Omar Gatskill’s quote.

**CopticChristian, in your post #31, you attributed a quote to me, Anna Scott, that belongs to Omar Gatskill.

CopticChristian, in your post #33, You attributed a quote to Omar Gatskill that belongs to Wandile. **

Wandle, in your post #32, you attributed a quote to me, Anna Scott, that belongs to Omar Gatskill.

This is what I, Anna Scott, said about the N.T. and Deuterocanonical Books:


Peace, 🙂
Anna
Anna,

Post 33 is addressed to the notion that Jesus quoted the DC. It is generic in its essence and although names appear “did you listen to Jimmmy” is based on the quoting of a link. It really does not matter to whom it is addressed. This reminds me of White men can’t Jump, when Wesley Snipes tells Woody Harrelson…Woody is listening to Jimmy Hendrix…and Wesley says…something like…what are you doing…“listening to Jimmy”…Wesley says…something like…"now don’t you know you just can’t listen to Jimmy…I know you are listening to him…but you just can’t hear him…This post was addressed to anyone that was listening and I hope they hear him.👍
 
Anna,

I appreciate your clarity. Please reread post 31, note I did not attribute anything to you. Your name appears. It is addressed as you see to “Omar” not Anna.
CopticChristian,

I did see that, but the quote in that post appears as “Originally posted by Anna Scott.” That’s what I’m talking about.

Peace,
Anna
 
CopticChristian,

I’m still hoping you will answer the question I raised about the authority issue you brought to the table regarding Protestants not having the authority to translate the Bible.
The reason varies. In my experience it is a spin. The truth is that Protestants without any authority took and translated the Catholic Bible and disseminated it. The DC were part of that Bible. . . .
This is my question that remains unanswered:
See my post #6. Fast forward to present day: the Catholic Church adopted the RSV and NRSV—translations formerly used primarily by non-Catholics. Why doesn’t the Catholic Church use English translations of Catholic Bibles (such as St. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate) in the CCC? What does the Catholic adoption of the RSV and NRSV say about the issue of authority?

Peace,
Anna
From Post #6:

. . . .Another interesting point in the Protestant vs. Catholic Bible issue is that the Catholic Church uses the RSV and NRSV in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition., The Catholic Church had to obtain permission from the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States to use the RSV and NRSV.

Quote from the CCC:
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition
“Scripture quotations contained herein are adapted from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright © 1946, 1952, 1971, and the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright © 1989 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States, and are used by permission. All rights reserved.”
The Catholic Bible Association adopted the Revised Standard Version, used primarily by non-Catholics and edited it for Catholic use. The RSV became the Revised Standard Version- Catholic Edition. It has been reissued under the title, The Ignatius Bible (there may be other titles at this point).

This is a quote from the** Introduction to the Catholic Edition of the Revised Standard Version**, found in the The Catholic Comparative New Testament:
“This edition of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible has been prepared for the use of Catholics by a committee of the Catholic Biblical Association of Great Britain. It is published with ecclesiastical approval and by agreement with the Standard Bible Committee and the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States. . . . A small committee of members of the Catholic Bible Association was formed and permission obtained to examine this translation and suggest any changes that might be required to make it acceptable to Catholics. The Standard Bible Committee of the U.S.A. was then approached and they gave warm welcome to the proposal."
There were very few changes made to produce the RSV-Catholic Edition. Most changes involve what is placed in the main body of text and what is placed in the footnotes in the case of variants among early manuscripts. Also, some of the commentaries are different and reflect Catholic theology.

Even though the RSV and NRSV are considered "ecumenical" translations, Catholics found the need to explain their use of translations, used primarily by non-Catholics—as reflected in this quote from the Introduction to the Catholic Edition of the Revised Standard Version, found in the The Catholic Comparative New Testament:
"For four hundred years, following upon the great upheaval of the Reformation, Catholics and Protestants have gone their separate ways and suspected each other’s translations of the Bible of having been in some way manipulated in the interests of doctrinal presuppositions. It must be admitted that these suspicions were not always without foundation. At the present time, however, the sciences of textual criticism and philology, not to mention others, have made such great advances that the Bible text used by translators is substantially the same for all–Protestants and Catholics alike."
With all the resources of the Catholic Church; I’m surprised by this adoption of the RSV and NRSV, rather than a translation purely from Catholic sources. . . .

Peace,
Anna
 
CopticChristian,

I’m still hoping you will answer the question I raised about the authority issue you brought to the table regarding Protestants not having the authority to translate the Bible.

This is my question that remains unanswered:

From Post #6:

. . . .Another interesting point in the Protestant vs. Catholic Bible issue is that the Catholic Church uses the RSV and NRSV in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition., The Catholic Church had to obtain permission from the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States to use the RSV and NRSV.

Quote from the CCC:

The Catholic Bible Association adopted the Revised Standard Version, used primarily by non-Catholics and edited it for Catholic use. The RSV became the Revised Standard Version- Catholic Edition. It has been reissued under the title, The Ignatius Bible (there may be other titles at this point).

This is a quote from the** Introduction to the Catholic Edition of the Revised Standard Version**, found in the The Catholic Comparative New Testament:

There were very few changes made to produce the RSV-Catholic Edition. Most changes involve what is placed in the main body of text and what is placed in the footnotes in the case of variants among early manuscripts. Also, some of the commentaries are different and reflect Catholic theology.

Even though the RSV and NRSV are considered "ecumenical" translations, Catholics found the need to explain their use of translations, used primarily by non-Catholics—as reflected in this quote from the Introduction to the Catholic Edition of the Revised Standard Version, found in the The Catholic Comparative New Testament:

With all the resources of the Catholic Church; I’m surprised by this adoption of the RSV and NRSV, rather than a translation purely from Catholic sources. . . .

Peace,
Anna
Anna, Anna, Anna…I am directing this to you Anna…

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revised_Standard_Version_Catholic_Edition

The changes that were made make a difference in understanding that Jesus had no brothers, Mary was full of Grace, Sola Scriptura and the Holy Spirit is a person…while there may have been small changes any change is worth noting or it wasn’t worth doing.

While you ask if Protestants have a right to translate the Bible…I say no…The problem as you recall started with unauthorized translation in English that were filled with error…Protestants are getting better at translating however I cannot say under what authority they translate, and it is the Church that is to say what is an authoritative or correct translation and they made corrections that cause what is written to be appropriately called Scripture after the translation was corrected. That is my opinion.🙂
 
Part 1 of 2 to CopticChristian:
. . .I am directing this to you Anna. .
The changes that were made make a difference in understanding that. . . .Mary was full of Grace. . .
RSV Luke 1: [28] And he came to her and said, “Hail, O favored one, the Lord is with you!” Footnote: full of grace

RSV-CE Luke 1: [28] And he came to her and said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!” Footnote: Or O favored one

Both translations acknowledge two possible translations for Luke 1:28: full of grace and O favored one.

Our Anglo Catholic Priest teaches that the Blessed Virgin Mary is both highly favored and full of grace, and we are to ask for her intercession.
The changes that were made make a difference in understanding that Jesus had no brothers, . . .
The RSV uses the word brothers in many instances where the RSV-CE uses the word brethren.

The RSV-CE uses the word brethren in Mt.12:46; Mt.12:48; Mt.12:49; Mt.13:55; Lk. 8:19; Lk. 8:20; Lk. 8:21; Jn. 2:12; Jn. 7:3; Jn. 7:5; Jn. 7:10; Acts 1:14; 1 Cor. 9:5. It is interesting to note that the New Jerusalem Bible, also a Catholic Bible, uses brother(s) in every one of these passages. See Catholic Online Link: catholic.org/bible/book.php?id=47

In view of the New Jerusalem Bible translation of brothers over brethren and the fact that brethren is a synonym for brothers—I really can’t imagine that the brothers vs. brethren differences between the RSV and the RSV-CE are of any theological consequence. Our Anglo Catholic Parish uses the RSV/NRSV and we are taught that the Blessed Virgin Mary is a Perpetual Virgin; Jesus had no siblings. Admittedly, some of our more reformed brethren, using the RSV/NRSV might disagree with this interpretation; but this an interpretation issue, not a translation issue.

But—let’s take a look. . . .

RSV Matthew 12: [46] While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him. [48] But he replied to the man who told him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” [49] And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! [50] For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother, and sister, and mother.” The body of text doesn’t include verse 47. Footnote Mt. 12:47 brothers

RSV-CE Matthew 12: [46] While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren* stood outside, asking to speak to him. [48] But he replied to the man who told him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brethren?”* [49] And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brethren! [50] For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother, and sister, and mother.” Footnote Mt.12:46: brethren: The Greek word or its Semitic equivalent was used for varying degrees of blood relationships cf. Gen. 14:14; 29.12; Lev 10.4. The body of text doesn’t include verse 47. Footnote Mt. 12:47: brethren

In Matthew 13:55-56, the RSV uses the word brothers. The RVS-CE uses brethren. Both translations use the word sisters:
RSV Matthew 13: [55] Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? [56] And are not all his sisters with us? . . .

RSV-CE Matthew 13: [55] Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brethren* James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? [56] And are not all his sisters with us? . . . Footnote Mt. 13:55: See note on Mt. 12:46.

In Mark 6: 1-3, both the RSV and RSV-CE use the word brother and both use sisters:
RSV Mark 6: [1] He went away from there and came to his own country; and his disciples followed him. [2] And on the sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue; and many who heard him were astonished, saying, “Where did this man get all this? What is the wisdom given to him? What mighty works are wrought by his hands! [3] Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.

RSV-CE Mark 6: [1] He went away from there and came to his own country; and his disciples followed him. [2] And on the sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue; and many who heard him were astonished, saying, “Where did this man get all this? What is the wisdom given to him? What mighty works are wrought by his hands! [3] Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.

In Galations 1:19, both the RSV and RSV-CE use the word brother.
RSV Galations 1: [19] But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother.

RSV-CE Galations 1: [19] But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother.
**
Continued–Part 2 of 2 Next Page** 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top