King James Bible w/ Deuterocanonical Books for Catholics

[BartholomewB]

Well, yes, the canonical order of the OT books has changed in the course of the centuries. Job, for instance, was listed in the Gelasian decree among the historical books, before Tobit. But in all present-day Bibles Job is placed further down, as the first of the wisdom books. The decision to move it must have been made by somebody, somewhere, on a certain date.

But in the case of the two books of Maccabees, no such binding decision was ever made, as far as we can tell. Unlike all the other forty-four books, these two alone don’t have a single, fixed place in the canonical order of the OT. I’m sorry, @bpd_stl, but your short answer doesn’t explain why that is.

 

[ziapueblo]

I’m Orthodox and use the Orthodox Study Bible which uses the NKJV and the Septuagint OT.

ZP

 

[BartholomewB]

There was a brief period, though I’d have to look up the dates, when publishers were allowed to issue only the short version of the KJV, omitting the middle section titled “The Apocrypha.” From memory, I think it was a period of around twenty to thirty years. With that sole exception, throughout all the rest of the four centuries from 1611 to the present day, publishers have always been free to publish it in either form, with or without the Apocrypha. Anglican churches were always required, however, to use the longer form, except during that period when it was banned.

 

[bpd_stl]

Well, yes, the canonical order of the OT books has changed in the course of the centuries. Job, for instance, was listed in the Gelasian decree among the historical books, before Tobit. But in all present-day Bibles Job is placed further down, as the first of the wisdom books. The decision to move it must have been made by somebody, somewhere, on a certain date.

But in the case of the two books of Maccabees, no such binding decision was ever made, as far as we can tell. Unlike all the other forty-four books, these two alone don’t have a single, fixed place in the canonical order of the OT. I’m sorry, @bpd_stl, but your short answer doesn’t explain why that is.

The LXX places Maccabees in the historical books. Whereas, S-C Vulgate placed them at the end of the OT. Before the S-C Vulgate, there was apparently no standardization of book order. An example can be found on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_of_the_Vulgate#Sequence_of_Books_in_Vulgate_Old_Testaments. The promulgation of the Sixto-Clemetine edition settled book order (for Catholics at least). However, apparently not, since my NAB places Maccabees in the historical books. So, you are right. My guess, modern Catholic editors feel they can re-arrange is because of Divino Afflante Spiritu?

 

[BartholomewB]

My guess, modern Catholic editors feel they can re-arrange is because of Divino Afflante Spiritu?

That possibility hadn’t occurred to me. I’ll take a look.

Even the Vatican website can’t make up its mind. It has the full text of the Bible in five languages, and the OT books appear in not just two but three different orders. In the Nova Vulgata, the two books of Maccabees are placed at the end of the OT, after Malachi. In English, Italian, and Chinese* they’re in the historical books, after Esther. And in Spanish the order seems to be a bit of a jumble. It follows the Jewish canonical order closely, though not exactly, and puts all the deuterocanonicals at the end, just as they appear in Protestant Bibles that include the so-called “Apocrypha.” Link below.

*I can’t read Chinese, but I can see there are five pairs of books numbered 1 and 2, which can only be Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Esdras (Ezra & Nehemiah), and Maccabees.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ESL0506/_INDEX.HTM

 

[bpd_stl]

bpd_stl:

My guess, modern Catholic editors feel they can re-arrange is because of Divino Afflante Spiritu?

That possibility hadn’t occurred to me. I’ll take a look.

That is my guess. DAS gives Catholic scholars a wide berth. Some, I think, take advantage of it.

It is interesting to note that there are no “authorized” Catholic translations that re-arrange the order of NT books. However, there seems to be “liberty” in re-arranging the order of OT books.

Trent officially defined the canon of Scripture for the RC Church in the decree De Canonicis Scripturis. However, there was no specific declaration as to the order of books, just canonicity. The S-C Vulgate provided an order (which followed the order listed at Trent), which the Nova Vulgata also follows. Some see this as the precedent not to be deviated from. Obviously, others do not.

Regardless, clearly the Vatican doesn’t have any real problem with the re-arrangement of the deuterocanonicals…just as long as they’re included.