KJV Bible with Deuterocanonicals

  • Thread starter Thread starter CurtisHouse
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CurtisHouse

Guest
I am converting to the Catholic Church and I have had many versions of the Bible over the years. Much to my dismay when I found out that all of them were incomplete. King James Version was always my favorite. To my recollection, the early KJV up until the mid 1800s always had the deuterocanonicals in them. As a Catholic, would it be okay to still read the KJV as long as it had the missing 7 books or is it not advisable since the translation isn’t on the officially approved list of Bibles of the Catholic Church? In case you were wondering, I do own a couple Catholic Bibles now. The Douay-Rheims and the Catholic Answer Bible which, I believe, is NABRE. Thank you in advance for responding. Have a blessed weekend.

Curtis
 
Last edited:
Or you could go with the New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE).
 
I don’t see a problem with it. The Orthodox Study Bible uses the the NKJV for the NT and the Septuagint for the OT.

ZP
 
Have to look into that version. Just doing a quick search for it on Google and it is interesting that even protestant Bible sites such as biblegateway are applauding it. Have to do more research before I pick another Bible to start reading. That Great Adventure Bible seems to be quite interesting from what I’ve seen.
 
As a former Baptist, yes, you can continue to read the KJV, knowing that the footnotes may differ from Catholic teaching. I often use my old KJV (with the missing books) since that is the version I have memorized. I also like to use it to compare with my Catholic Bibles. Now, I mostly use NABRE and NRSVCE. I love the language of the KJV, but do find that the NABRE and RSVCE are more user friendly. Welcome home!
 
Thank you. Just reading a little bit of the NRSVCE makes it seem that it flows quite well. Bibles are such an investment nowadays. 60-100 bucks usually. Makes me sometimes wonder what God thinks about all this.
 
The KJV was translated by Protestants and has never been approved for use by Catholics. That does not mean that it is worthless, FAR from it, just that you have no guarantee that the translations have not, even in some subtle way, deviated from Catholic truth. For instance, “do penance” gets consistently rendered as “repent” in the KJV, a very important difference, in that there is no role in Protestantism for doing penance for one’s sins. My understanding of Protestantism is that “Jesus did it all” on the cross, and that nothing you can ever do will avail to the salvation of your soul or make satisfaction for the temporal punishment due for already-repented sin. That’s the most obvious difference I can think of between the KJV and the Douay-Rheims (which can be thought of as a sort of “Catholic KJV”).

That said, the KJV is unsurpassed for sheer literary excellence. Many of our modern biblically-derived idioms come straight from the KJV. The Douay-Rheims, while superficially similar to the KJV, is more of a direct translation from the Latin Vulgate, and has awkward turns of phrase where the KJV is more elegant.

I can’t speak for the NKJV, as I’ve never used it. I use the Douay-Rheims for doctrinal exactitude, and modern Church-approved versions for reading (New English Bible, etc.).
 
I received my KJV from my parents when I graduated high school. I know it cost about $100 because of the leather cover. I’ve had it now for 46 years and it’s still in great shape (and well used.) Now, seems like the imitation leather Bibles (any version) run around $50. You can buy very inexpensive, no frills paperback versions. My parish Knights of Columbus gave me a beautiful St. Joseph’s NABRE at the Easter Vigil.
 
Yes that is why I’m wary about looking back at the KJV again. It is all written so beautifully but the faith alone false doctrine leads to some bias by the translators. Another reason I love the KJV is because of the thees, thous, etc. A lot of people don’t like it for that reason but the exactness with those words shows you exactly who is being talked about. Thou is singular while ye and such refer to a group setting like y’all haha The NKJV tries to remove “archaic” language such as what I just mentioned. Not really a big fan of it. Really do like what I see from the NRSVCE though.
 
HomeschoolDad said:
I can’t speak for the NKJV, as I’ve never used it. I use the Douay-Rheims for doctrinal exactitude, and modern Church-approved versions for reading (New English Bible, etc.).
Click to expand...
The NKJV is actually my preferred translation for casual reading / listening. I wish that someone would come out with an edition with the Deuterocanonicals, but I’m not holding my breath. When I need to consult them, I can always switch to the NRSV.

D
 
My grandmother bought me my first Bible, a KJV, on my 21st birthday. First time I really even thought much about God. That led me down the road almost 20 years later to where I am now. Ironically she is vehemently against the Catholic Church it seems.
 
17th century polemics aside, the “complete” KJV is not a bad bible. The OT is praised for its literary qualities, but the NT strikes me as stilted, clumsy. The D-R is better in that regard. The KNOX is a wonderful, unapologetically British translation, based on the Clementine Vulgate.

Any of the 1941-1969 (US) Confraternity Bibles are excellent. One of the absolute best NT translations, with varying degrees of D-R Old Testament, and fresh translations inserted as time passed.

Personally, I love the Vulgate-based translations, as they reflect, to some degree, the heart of Saint Jerome, who produced/refined the original Latin translation. Very warm and human. Tobit, in particular, stands out. It is an amazing read which is not reflected in newer translations which use other manuscripts.
 
I 100% agree on Tobit. It is one of my favorite books of the Bible, particularly so in the Vulgate versions.

Beautiful.
 
Google Book Preview of Orthodox Study Bible

books.google.com

The Orthodox Study Bible

The FIRST EVER Orthodox Study Bible presents the Bible of the early church and the church of the early Bible.Orthodox Christianity is the face of ancient Christianity to the modern world and embraces the second largest body of Christians in the world. In this first-of-its-kind study Bible, the...
books.google.com
 
It seems that for Protestants in general, it is as though the deutero-canonicals don’t even exist. The books are simply not on their radar screen. So I don’t think they are generally going to be included in newer translations. The New English Bible and the Jerusalem Bible would be exceptions to this.
 
I think there are two separate questions here, which it would be helpful to keep apart. On the one hand, it is true that no edition of any Protestant Bible places the deuterocanonicals in their (Catholic) canonical order, namely … Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Baruch, Ezekiel … If these books are included at all, they are segregated into a middle section titled the “Apocrypha,” sandwiched between the OT and the NT.

The other question is whether Bible publishers opt to include this middle section or to leave it out. My impression is that this is a purely commercial consideration. Some prospective buyers want one kind of Bible, some the other. The same publisher may produce the same edition of the same translation in two different formats, with and without the Apocrypha, simply to ensure that all prospective purchasers will find the product they prefer.
 
Last edited:
Do they ever question by what authority those books were declare to be “not inspired”? Which ecumenical council of reformers argued and debated the issue in plenary council until a final decision was made?

Of course, there was, is, and will never be any such thing. The reform side of Christianity can agree on precious little, and no such council (which would reflect unity) is possible. Interestingly, it was study of the Deuterocanonical books that started Lutheran pastor and theologian Jaroslav Pelikan on a journey which stopped short of the Catholic Church, but did lead him to go from Lutheran pastor to Orthodox layman.

As to bibles, a “sleeper” of a daily reader is the Revised English Bible w/Apocrypha. It was translated with (name removed by moderator)ut from the Catholic hierarchy of England and Wales, Scotland and Ireland. A very good daily reader and available used/excellent for $4-$5. A bargain.
 
I stand corrected. I thought the Jerusalem Bible was an ecumenical translation with Catholic (name removed by moderator)ut. It is used by some Protestants.
 
A common view I’ve heard among Catholics is that they have a Jerusalem Bible because it has the best introductions and the best footnotes, but they don’t read the actual Biblical text much because they don’t care for it as a translation. They have other Bibles for that.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top