Chapters and verses

[Big_Dummy]

I am looking for a table that shows how books, chapters and verses in the Douay, King James Version, NAB Bibles and other Catholic Bibles lines up.

Besides the seven deutecanonal books, what other additions or extras are in the catholic bibles?

How does the Hebrew Old Testament and LXX, books, chapter and verses lines up? Is there a table for this?

What additions or extra books does the LXX have?

Thanks
BD

 

[ESMDHokie77]

I think you should phrase your question as, “what else are protestant bibles missing from the fullness presented in Catholic bibles?”

Nothing is added by Catholics. Books were taken away by some (protestants), and false books were added by others (mormons).

Peace,
Phil

 

[Oldtimer_7]

BD, that’s a tall order. I suppose that someone has done it, but the short answer is that some Bibles, particularly study Bibles will mark some verses either by footnoting them or by graying certain passages to show that there is a divergence in their inclusion. Some famous examples are the Johannine Comma in 1 John and the two endings of Mark. I leave this for my Catholic friends here to answer: the Deuterocanon reads quite differently in the Douay-Rheims Bible than it does in translations from the Alexandrian texts. DRC is almost like a Cliff’s Notes version.

 

[Big_Dummy]

I think you should phrase your question as, “what else are protestant bibles missing from the fullness presented in Catholic bibles?”

Nothing is added by Catholics. Books were taken away by some (protestants), and false books were added by others (mormons).

Peace,
Phil

boring phil, thats where “extra” comes in.

 

[rose_m]

From the reading that I’ve done the LXX does appear to be significantly different from the Masoretic text (the manuscripts used for virtually all English translations that are not distinctly from the LXX). The book of Jeremiah is the most different. The chapters of Jeremiah in the LXX are even in a different order than the chapters in the Masoretic text. Some books or sections of books are less different than others though.

Here’s one site that you might find particular interesting. It will pull up any passage in the KJV OT and align it next to the Brenton version of the LXX so that you can see just where the differences lie. Pull up a passage that you know particularly well and see for yourself how they differ.

ecmarsh.com/lxx-kjv/

 

[rose_m]

After my last reply I was thinking that you might like a little more info.

There are 3 basic texts of the OT, the Masoretic text, the LXX and a not very important Samaritan text. The Masoretic texts are what most translations are based on, including the Vulgate. The LXX is a Greek text but it is believed to be translated from Hebrew text that predates the Masoretic texts. The LXX included all the Roman Catholic deuterocanonical books and some of the books used by different Orthodox churches. The Masoretic text only includes the books found in the protestant bibles. At the time of Christ the LXX was widely used by the Jews and is what Jesus and the apostles quoted from. That’s why sometimes NT quotations of the OT don’t always seem to lie up very nicely.

As the early church emerged started to prove that Jesus was the messiah from the OT (LXX) the Jews started to look for an out. It’s likely that the Jews in the late 1st century switched from the LXX to Masoretic texts and canonised the OT in an attempt to separate themselves from the Christians and to favour a text that had fewer obvious messianic prophecies that pointed to Christ. This was probably done at the council of Jamnia prior to the destruction of Jerusalem. This switch is pretty hotly debated about though.

The early church fathers heavily used the LXX including the deuterocanon. That said, the canon was not exactly fixed prior to the council of Nicea. There was some debate among the early church fathers about certain books. Some of the fathers even considered books that no official church today has canonised to be scriptures, such as the Didache. Origen argued quite strongly against the Masoretic texts and claimed that the Jews used it only to get away from the obvious messianic prophecies found in the LXX.

The preference for the LXX changed though with Jerome’s translation of the Vulgate. Jerome personally favoured the Masoretic texts (likely he had been influenced by Jews) and chose to make his translation based on the Masoretic texts. This caused no little criticism within the church but because the work had been commissioned by the Pope it was accepted and gradually became universally accepted.

When Jerome made his translation he did translate deuterocanon despite the fact that it wasn’t in the Masoretic text. He set them aside into an appendix and noted that it wasn’t exactly equal with the rest of scripture.

When history progressed to the time of the Reformation and fellows like Luther and Calvin were trying to decide what they believed and what they wanted to fight against to them the appendix to the Vulgate looked really suspect. They didn’t have on hand the early church writings but they did have the Hebrew Masoretic texts. All they could see was a group of books that looked as though they had been added to the scriptures. They could see that they weren’t in the Masoretic texts and so they logically wondered where they came from and in end discarded them and claimed that it was corruption that had introduced them. Unfortunately this attitude prevails to today.

Personally, I think that we should consider switching back to the LXX. I’m definitely in the minority with this opinion but the testimony of the early church fathers is pretty compelling.