King James Bible w/ Deuterocanonical Books for Catholics

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mchristian
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Mchristian

Guest
Any ideas where I can find
King James Bible w/ Deuterocanonical Books for Catholics ?
 
Great question! Essentially I like the archaic language.

May I ask what is difference between between DR & KJV in general but then specifically in reference to language type used?

Your help is appreciated
 
The KJV is written from a protestant perspective, not a Catholic one so will have different interpretations on some passages to the Church. The DR came out a few years before the KJV, uses similar language but is a Catholic bible.
 
I use several Catholic version but also enjoy the archaic & authority’s sound of old English.
 
If you can find an unabridged King James, I believe it actually has translations of all the books, but puts some in an appendix. Many modern publishers omit the appendix for economic or theological reasons.
 
Perhaps you are not aware that the original 1611 version of the KJB did contain the Deuterocanonical Books. They were removed in later editions after the reformation. You can still get this edition from several places.

Peace!
 
There are several points given here:
40.png
KJV Bible with Deuterocanonicals Sacred Scripture
I 100% agree on Tobit. It is one of my favorite books of the Bible, particularly so in the Vulgate versions. Beautiful.
Click to expand...
Consider Catholic Bibles:

 
Mchristian said:
Great question! Essentially I like the archaic language.

May I ask what is difference between between DR & KJV in general but then specifically in reference to language type used?

Your help is appreciated
Click to expand...
As aside, you might want to read this book by James Carleton on how the KJV relied quite heavily on the Rheims NT. It’s old, so past copyright issues. Free on the internet: https://archive.org/details/partofrheimsinma00carlrich
 
Oxford University Press puts out a great version of the KJV with the Deuterocanonical books.
 
King James Bible was created specifically to counter and disprove Catholic beliefs by manipulating the translation of words and word order. Asking for a Catholic version of KJV is an oxymoron.

Just because a KJV Bible with all the books exists doesn’t mean it’s Catholic and prudent to read.
 
Last edited:
Dolphin said:
King James Bible was created specifically to counter and disprove Catholic beliefs by manipulating the translation of words and word order. Asking for a Catholic version of KJV is an oxymoron.
Click to expand...
It’s also a classic example of English prose.
 
I can’t deny that, very true. If your purpose is to read it for the literary masterpiece aspect of it (kind of like reading Shakespeare) then sure it’s fine. But if it’s to gain theological insight while reading it in a nice literary form, then no definitely not. This is where the virtue of prudence comes into play.
 
Last edited:
ralfyman said:
Is there an imprimatur?
Click to expand...
No.

Fr. Ousley (a Catholic Priest who is part of the Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter) is the editor who put this together & explains a lot about this in the intro he wrote to the 2 volume Bible & his Q/A. You can read about this Bible (including the intro to the Bible and the Q/A) via the link below.

NOTE: He calls it “King James Bible FOR Catholics” and NOT a “King James Bible - Catholic Edition” on purpose, and he explains why in the below link.

 
Last edited:
Just a minor detail that caught my attention, a question of canonical order. There doesn’t seem to be a fixed place, in Catholic Bibles, for 1 & 2 Maccabees. In some Bibles, as in this one, they’re put at the very end of the OT, after Malachi. But I’m more used to seeing them as the last two of the historical books, after Esther. There’s an invariable, fixed order for all the other forty-four books of the OT. What is the explanation of the disagreement about Maccabees?
 
BartholomewB said:
Just a minor detail that caught my attention, a question of canonical order. There doesn’t seem to be a fixed place, in Catholic Bibles, for 1 & 2 Maccabees. In some Bibles, as in this one, they’re put at the very end of the OT, after Malachi. But I’m more used to seeing them as the last two of the historical books, after Esther. There’s an invariable, fixed order for all the other forty-four books of the OT. What is the explanation of the disagreement about Maccabees?
Click to expand...
Short answer: the Sixto-Celementine Vulgate, which placed them after Malachi. Modern editors prefer to place them after Esther since Maccabees are “historical” books.
 
Last edited:
I went to a funeral today at a old country Methodist church and they had a KJV bible version on display in the front of the church. I couldn’t find the publish date but it did have the apocryphal books and It didnt seem extremely old so i began to wonder, at what date did the KJV remove the apocryphal books as a general rule? How old would this bible have to be and still include the apocryphal books.

Peace!!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top