Protestant Bible Incorporates the ONLY inspired books

[R_Britton]

Hi Rachel, and welcome to the forum!
There are quite a few translations, and it’s really just a matter of personal preference. The main thing to look out for is the frontispiece should say it’s a Catholic bible - You can get a Catholic version of the NIV, if that’s what you’re used to. The one with language like the King James is the Douai-Rheims Bible. Then there is the Jerusalem or the New Jerusalem Bible - readings in the Church in England are based in the Jerusalem Bible. There is also the Revised Standard (Catholic Edition) , which is the one I like.
Go along to either a Catholic bookshop, or a large chain such as Waterstones and have a look. There are several Catholic bookshops in London, there are two close by Westminster Cathedral (well worth a look round by the way!)
Good luck, and God bless.

Many thanks for this. I am going to the lovely Blackwells in Oxford tomorrow (today!) so I will have a good rummage about and buy myself one for my birthday!!
Rachel

 

[Nan_S]

You can get a Catholic version of the NIV, if that’s what you’re used to.

I’ve enjoyed reading the NIV for years, even though I’m Catholic. If the New International Version has been published in a Catholic Edition, I’ve never seen one. In reading the introductory notes for the NIV, it seems every mainstream Christian church except the Catholics had a hand in developing the NIV.

I’ve also never seen an NIV with the Deuterocanonical books (aka the Apocrypha). I wish they would put out such an edition.

 

[Nan_S]

2 Things:

1. Can anyone show where Jesus referrenced any scitpture for the Apocrypha?
2. If not, could I have an argument that he also didn’t quote from many other scriture both old and new. Can anyone give specifics on this if my statement is correct?

My thinking is that if his statement about Jesus OR anything in the New Testament didn’t quote anything from the Apocrypha, then that would basically be saying that a great deal he already accepts is false by his own words. Pleas assist.

The Apocrypha (what Catholics call the Deuterocanonicals) is actually quite well cross-referenced with the NT. Many of the “radical new” teachings presented by Jesus were originally found in the Deuterocanonicals.

The OT edition that has all the Deuterocanonical books is the Septuagint. You’ll find all you’re looking for and more in this scholarly study, Notes on the Septuagint geocities.com/Heartland/Pines/7224/Rick/Septuagint/spindex.htm

 

[thistle]

DEUTEROCANONICALS REFERENCED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

Matt. 2:16 - Herod’s decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wis. 11:7 - slaying the holy innocents.

Matt. 6:19-20 - Jesus’ statement about laying up for yourselves treasure in heaven follows Sirach 29:11 - lay up your treasure.

Matt… 7:12 - Jesus’ golden rule “do unto others” is the converse of Tobit 4:15 - what you hate, do not do to others.

Matt. 7:16,20 - Jesus’ statement “you will know them by their fruits” follows Sirach 27:6 - the fruit discloses the cultivation.

Matt. 9:36 - the people were “like sheep without a shepherd” is same as Judith 11:19 - sheep without a shepherd.

Matt. 11:25 - Jesus’ description “Lord of heaven and earth” is the same as Tobit 7:18 - Lord of heaven and earth.

Matt. 12:42 - Jesus refers to the wisdom of Solomon which was recorded and made part of the deuterocanonical books.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus’ reference to the “power of death” and “gates of Hades” references Wisdom 16:13.

Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 - Gospel writers refer to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 regarding the seven brothers.

Matt. 24:15 - the “desolating sacrilege” Jesus refers to is also taken from 1 Macc. 1:54 and 2 Macc. 8:17.

Matt. 24:16 - let those “flee to the mountains” is taken from 1 Macc. 2:28.

Matt. 27:43 - if He is God’s Son, let God deliver him from His adversaries follows Wisdom 2:18.

Mark 4:5,16-17 - Jesus’ description of seeds falling on rocky ground and having no root follows Sirach 40:15.

Mark 9:48 - description of hell where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched references Judith 16:17.

Luke 1:42 - Elizabeth’s declaration of Mary’s blessedness above all women follows Uzziah’s declaration in Judith 13:18.

Luke 1:52 - Mary’s magnificat addressing the mighty falling from their thrones and replaced by lowly follows Sirach 10:14.

Luke 2:29 - Simeon’s declaration that he is ready to die after seeing the Child Jesus follows Tobit 11:9.

Luke 13:29 - the Lord’s description of men coming from east and west to rejoice in God follows Baruch 4:37.

Luke 21:24 - Jesus’ usage of “fall by the edge of the sword” follows Sirach 28:18.

Luke 24:4 and Acts 1:10 - Luke’s description of the two men in dazzling apparel reminds us of 2 Macc. 3:26.

John 1:3 - all things were made through Him, the Word, follows Wisdom 9:1.

John 3:13 - who has ascended into heaven but He who descended from heaven references Baruch 3:29.

John 4:48; Acts 5:12; 15:12; 2 Cor. 12:12 - Jesus’, Luke’s and Paul’s usage of “signs and wonders” follows Wisdom 8:8.

John 5:18 - Jesus claiming that God is His Father follows Wisdom 2:16.

John 6:35-59 - Jesus’ Eucharistic discourse is foreshadowed in Sirach 24:21.

John 10:22 - the identification of the feast of the dedication is taken from 1 Macc. 4:59.

John 15:6 - branches that don’t bear fruit and are cut down follows Wis. 4:5 where branches are broken off.

Acts 1:15 - Luke’s reference to the 120 may be a reference to 1 Macc. 3:55 - leaders of tens / restoration of the twelve.

Acts 10:34; Rom. 2:11; Gal. 2:6 - Peter’s and Paul’s statement that God shows no partiality references Sirach 35:12.

Acts 17:29 - description of false gods as like gold and silver made by men follows Wisdom 13:10.

Rom 1:18-25 - Paul’s teaching on the knowledge of the Creator and the ignorance and sin of idolatry follows Wis. 13:1-10.

Rom. 1:20 - specifically, God’s existence being evident in nature follows Wis. 13:1.

Rom. 1:23 - the sin of worshipping mortal man, birds, animals and reptiles follows Wis. 11:15; 12:24-27; 13:10; 14:8.

Rom. 1:24-27 - this idolatry results in all kinds of sexual perversion which follows Wis. 14:12,24-27.

Rom. 4:17 - Abraham is a father of many nations follows Sirach 44:19.

Rom. 5:12 - description of death and sin entering into the world is similar to Wisdom 2:24.

Rom. 9:21 - usage of the potter and the clay, making two kinds of vessels follows Wisdom 15:7.

1 Cor. 2:16 - Paul’s question, “who has known the mind of the Lord?” references Wisdom 9:13.

1 Cor. 6:12-13; 10:23-26 - warning that, while all things are good, beware of gluttony, follows Sirach 36:18 and 37:28-30.

1 Cor. 8:5-6 - Paul acknowledging many “gods” but one Lord follows Wis. 13:3.

1 Cor. 10:1 - Paul’s description of our fathers being under the cloud passing through the sea refers to Wisdom 19:7.

1 Cor. 10:20 - what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God refers to Baruch 4:7.

1 Cor. 15:29 - if no expectation of resurrection, it would be foolish to be baptized on their behalf follows 2 Macc. 12:43-45.

continued…

 

[thistle]

continued…

Eph. 1:17 - Paul’s prayer for a “spirit of wisdom” follows the prayer for the spirit of wisdom in Wisdom 7:7.

Eph. 6:14 - Paul describing the breastplate of righteousness is the same as Wis. 5:18. See also Isaiah 59:17 and 1Thess. 5:8.

Eph. 6:13-17 - in fact, the whole discussion of armor, helmet, breastplate, sword, shield follows Wis. 5:17-20.

1 Tim. 6:15 - Paul’s description of God as Sovereign and King of kings is from 2 Macc. 12:15; 13:4.

2 Tim. 4:8 - Paul’s description of a crown of righteousness is similar to Wisdom 5:16.

Heb. 4:12 - Paul’s description of God’s word as a sword is similar to Wisdom 18:15.

Heb. 11:5 - Enoch being taken up is also referenced in Wis 4:10 and Sir 44:16. See also 2 Kings 2:1-13 & Sir 48:9 regarding Elijah.

Heb 11:35 - Paul teaches about the martyrdom of the mother and her sons described in 2 Macc. 6:18, 7:1-42.

Heb. 12:12 - the description “drooping hands” and “weak knees” comes from Sirach 25:23.

James 1:19 - let every man be quick to hear and slow to respond follows Sirach 5:11.

James 2:23 - it was reckoned to him as righteousness follows 1 Macc. 2:52 - it was reckoned to him as righteousness.

James 3:13 - James’ instruction to perform works in meekness follows Sirach 3:17.

James 5:3 - describing silver which rusts and laying up treasure follows Sirach 29:10-11.

James 5:6 - condemning and killing the “righteous man” follows Wisdom 2:10-20.

1 Peter 1:6-7 - Peter teaches about testing faith by purgatorial fire as described in Wisdom 3:5-6 and Sirach 2:5.

1 Peter 1:17 - God judging each one according to his deeds refers to Sirach 16:12 - God judges man according to his deeds.

2 Peter 2:7 - God’s rescue of a righteous man (Lot) is also described in Wisdom 10:6.

Rev. 1:18; Matt. 16:18 - power of life over death and gates of Hades follows Wis. 16:13.

Rev. 2:12 - reference to the two-edged sword is similar to the description of God’s Word in Wisdom 18:16.

Rev. 5:7 - God is described as seated on His throne, and this is the same description used in Sirach 1:8.

Rev. 8:3-4 - prayers of the saints presented to God by the hand of an angel follows Tobit 12:12,15.

Rev. 8:7 - raining of hail and fire to the earth follows Wisdom 16:22 and Sirach 39:29.

Rev. 9:3 - raining of locusts on the earth follows Wisdom 16:9.

Rev. 11:19 - the vision of the ark of the covenant (Mary) in a cloud of glory was prophesied in 2 Macc. 2:7.

Rev. 17:14 - description of God as King of kings follows 2 Macc. 13:4.

Rev. 19:1 - the cry “Hallelujah” at the coming of the new Jerusalem follows Tobit 13:18.

Rev. 19:11 - the description of the Lord on a white horse in the heavens follows 2 Macc. 3:25; 11:8.

Rev. 19:16 - description of our Lord as King of kings is taken from 2 Macc. 13:4.

Rev. 21:19 - the description of the new Jerusalem with precious stones is prophesied in Tobit 13:17.

Exodus 23:7 - do not slay the innocent and righteous - Dan. 13:53 - do not put to death an innocent and righteous person.

 

[beeliner]

Many thanks for this. I am going to the lovely Blackwells in Oxford tomorrow (today!) so I will have a good rummage about and buy myself one for my birthday!!
Rachel

There isn’t anything wrong with any of the Catholic editions mentioned; however, there are also several excellent translations that are the result of interdenominational scholarship, Catholic-Protestant or Catholic-Protestant-Jewish, fully approved for both Catholics and Protestants. Two of the best-known are, for casual reading, the Good News Bible, and for serious research, the multi-volume Anchor Bible, originally published by Doubleday and now owned by Yale University. I recommend your local bookstore for the former and a good library for the latter.

 

[tnystrom]

This post addresses a great fundamental questions for non-Catholics. It goes to the heart of the sola scriptura problem. Catholics believe that is a wrong man-made principle. Christ created the Church and told the apostles the Holy Spirit would guide it, and that the gates of hell would never prevail against it. the Bible tells us that. All Christ’s teachings are not in the bible. The apostles taught for many years by word of mouth. The Bible tells us Jesus taught the apostles for 40 days after his resurrection and nothing was written down about what he said to them. Why the bible is the all in non-catholic though, is, I believe, simply from lack of knowledge of history and non-catholic churches gloss over the first 1500 years of Christianity, saying the church “went off the rails” and they say it got straightened out by the Reformation but few details are offered. The Church is what Christ left us to continue to guide. We’re not smart enough to individually figure it all out ourselves via sola scripture. That’s why there’s 30+K christian churches today. Non-catholics start questioning from an incorrect premise, that is, that Jesus left us the Bible alone to guide us. That’s why, non-catholics have such a hard time with the questions discussed here. The church is the official interpreter of the Bible.

Good words. Christ established the Church. The gates of Hell, Did Not prevail. There have been problems, heresy, sin, but the Holy Spirit guides his Church into all truth.
One question: why is it always brought up that a Jewish council took the deutocanonical books out? How is something a Jewish council did supposed to be binding on Christians?

 

[Nan_S]

DEUTEROCANONICALS REFERENCED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

Thanks, Thistle.

Great list.

Nan

 

[patrick457]

In Jesus’s day the Jews used the Hebrew scriptures as well as the Greek translation. The Hebrew canon did not contain the 14 extra books that the Jews at Alexandria inserted as an extra in their translation.

However, Hebrew versions of some of the Deuteros did exist. For example, fragments of the book of Tobit in Hebrew and Aramaic was found in Cave IV at Qumran in 1952, and several substantial Hebrew texts of Ben Sira (Sirach), copied in the eleventh and twelfth centuries AD, were found in the Cairo geniza (a synagogue storage room for damaged manuscripts). Although none of these manuscripts is complete, together they provide the text for about two-thirds of the book of Ben Sira.

In the 1950s and 1960s three copies of portions of Ben Sira were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. The largest scroll was discovered at Masada, the famous Jewish fortress destroyed in 73 AD. The earliest of these scrolls (2Q18) has been dated to the second part of the 1st century BC, approximately 150 years after Ben Sira was first composed. These early Hebrew texts are in substantial agreement with the Hebrew texts discovered in Cairo, although there are numerous minor textual variants. With these findings, scholars are now more confident that the Cairo texts are reliable witnesses to the Hebrew original.

 

[YADA]

Now that we have ab extenxiive list of NT to Duetero quites … Will the OP come back to apologize?

Where is he … lost?

 

[patrick457]

However, Hebrew versions of some of the Deuteros did exist. For example, fragments of the book of Tobit in Hebrew and Aramaic was found in Cave IV at Qumran in 1952, and several substantial Hebrew texts of Ben Sira (Sirach), copied in the eleventh and twelfth centuries AD, were found in the Cairo geniza (a synagogue storage room for damaged manuscripts). Although none of these manuscripts is complete, together they provide the text for about two-thirds of the book of Ben Sira.

In the 1950s and 1960s three copies of portions of Ben Sira were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. The largest scroll was discovered at Masada, the famous Jewish fortress destroyed in 73 AD. The earliest of these scrolls (2Q18) has been dated to the second part of the 1st century BC, approximately 150 years after Ben Sira was first composed. These early Hebrew texts are in substantial agreement with the Hebrew texts discovered in Cairo, although there are numerous minor textual variants. With these findings, scholars are now more confident that the Cairo texts are reliable witnesses to the Hebrew original.

-As for 1 Maccabees, the original Hebrew version (as can be deduced by a number of Hebrew idioms in the text, and the testimony of Origen and Jerome) was lost, and the present text comes down to us from the Septuagint.

The book’s author is unknown, but is assumed to have been a devout Jew from the Holy Land who may have even taken part in the events described in the book. He shows intimate and detailed geographical knowledge of the Holy Land, but is inaccurate in his information about foreign countries. The author interprets the events not as a miraculous intervention by God, but rather God’s using the instrument of the military genius of the Maccabees to achieve his ends. The words “God” and “Lord” never occur in the text, always being replaced by “Heaven” or “He”.

-2 Maccabees is almost certainly written in Greek, probably in Alexandria, Egypt. The author of 2 Maccabees is not identified, but he claims to be abridging a 5-volume work by Jason of Cyrene. This longer work is not preserved, and it is uncertain how much of the present text of 2 Maccabees is simply copied from that work. The author wrote in Greek, apparently, as there is no particular evidence of an earlier Hebrew version. A few sections of the book, such as the Preface, Epilogue, and some reflections on morality are generally assumed to come from the author, not from Jason. Jason’s work was apparently written sometime around 100 BC and most likely ended with the defeat of Nicanor, as does the abridgement available to us.

-The Book of Judith was originally written in Hebrew. Though its oldest versions have been translated into Greek and have not been preserved in the original language, its Hebrew origin is revealed in details of vocabulary and phrasing; However the extant Hebrew language versions, whether identical to the Greek, or in the shorter Hebrew version which contradicts the longer version in many specific details of the story, are medieval.

 

[guanophore]

2 Things:

1. Can anyone show where Jesus referrenced any scitpture for the Apocrypha?
2. If not, could I have an argument that he also didn’t quote from many other scriture both old and new. Can anyone give specifics on this if my statement is correct?

My thinking is that if his statement about Jesus OR anything in the New Testament didn’t quote anything from the Apocrypha, then that would basically be saying that a great deal he already accepts is false by his own words. Pleas assist.

I do have a list of these somewhere, so if someone else does not post them I will go look. I would like to point out that the same HS guided council that chose from among the 400+ books claiming to be inspired that were floating about at the time those books that should be in the NT is the one that chose the Septuagint for the OT.

One testimony to the inspiration of the deuterocanonicals is Jesus’ presence in the temple at the feast of booths. This feast was inaugurated after the Maccabean revolt, and if this was not “of God”, I find it hard to believe that Jesus would honor it by going up to the temple on that occasion.

 

[R_Britton]

I’ve enjoyed reading the NIV for years, even though I’m Catholic. If the New International Version has been published in a Catholic Edition, I’ve never seen one. In reading the introductory notes for the NIV, it seems every mainstream Christian church except the Catholics had a hand in developing the NIV.

I’ve also never seen an NIV with the Deuterocanonical books (aka the Apocrypha). I wish they would put out such an edition.

Hi

Just to let you know, I’ve had a hunt around on amazon both UK and US, and I can’t find an NIV Catholic Bible, although I did find A Catholic NIV Psalms…
Rachel

 

[peary]

I have been giving thought lately to the Catholic Biblical Books vs the Protestant Biblical Books. An individual wrote to me about this today which I would like to share with you and see if you may be able to offer any comments and/or criticism of the comments:

Jesus had to have had a definite body of writings in mind when he said in John 10:35 that the scriptures cannot be broken. Here he referred to Psalms as “law”. In Luke 24:44 he divided the scriptures into three main groups, Moses, prophets, and the psalms. He of course was the author of all of the Old Testament. I the first chapter of I Peter he explained that it was the spirit of Christ that guided the writers.
In Jesus’s day the Jews used the Hebrew scriptures as well as the Greek translation. The Hebrew canon did not contain the 14 extra books that the Jews at Alexandria inserted as an extra in their translation. Jesus never quoted from them and neither did the writers of the New Testament. Johephus was a Jewish priest and historian of the first century. He had access to the scriptures used at the temple and he refused the extra 14. I am told that Jerome who translated the Vulgate refused personally to accept the Apocrypha. I accept with confidence the standard 39 books of the Old Testament and the 27 of the New. This is what was generally accepted by the Jews for the Old and the Christians for both old and new. Jesus made the statement that Heaven and Earth would pass away, but that his word would not pass away. He also stated the his word would judge us in the last day (John 12:48). He should know since he is the Word. The church receives its authority from the Word, not the other way around. That would put Christ under the authority of the church.
I feel the need to accept the authority of the silence of the scriptures as well as what it requires. A place in Hebrews demonstrates this principle. In chapter 7:11-14 we find that the law is changed and therefore the priesthood could not be after order of Aaron for our Lord sprang out of another tribe of which Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood. Jesus could not be a priest on earth after the order of Aaron.

Jesus was a priest on earth after the order of Melchizadek.

 

[JimArsenault]

Boy what a loaded question this is.
We could sit here and argue for ever about it. The fact is that the fathers of the church “Catholic Church” knew the cultures of the times far better than we ever will ! In proper translation we “must” understand culture. How do you suppose St. Peter would translate the Boston Globe or any modern news paper if we could send it back through time. I am quite sure there would be thousands of opinions.
It is more than overstated in the Bible Unity and 1 Church We need to trust the church that Christ gave us.
Why do most protestants reject the very church that gave them the bible in the first place??
Why don’t they include the early fathers of the church in their history? They sort of skip that era.
I would suggest they read the letters of St Ignatious he describes in his letters from 100 ad the church I attend in 2008 ad.
When I read these letters I was in awe at the truths.
I have faith in the church that I believe truly came from Christ whom millions of lives have been sacrificed to defend "mayrters of the church.
God Bless all the Protestants who are following the light that is given them may they see our light and come to understand.
I sincerely love you all and wish the best for all.
humbly yours, jim

 

[Fundamentalist]

Now that we have ab extenxiive list of NT to Duetero quites … Will the OP come back to apologize?

Where is he … lost?

No, I am not lost. I really am learning a lot from this. As I said in my post, the question was posed to myself. I was looking for responses and a Catholic understanding. You have no idea just how much I appreciate this. I learn so much from reading from others. The analysis is absolutely wonderful.

No appologies, but a huge thank you!

 

[guanophore]

Welcome to CAF Rachel!

Hi

As a person wanting to learn more about Catholicism, from a protestant background, could someone please give me guidance on which versions of the Bible are accepted by the Roman Catholic Church?
I’ve had a hunt around this site, but not been able to find the answer.
Many thanks
Rachel

Catholics use the canon that was used by Jesus and the Apostles (at the time called Septuagint). It contains books that were removed at the Protestant Reformation 500 years ago. The removed books, called deuterocanonicals, are also now included in some Protestant Bibles.

I prefer the Revised Standard Version, because that is the one that I used when I first started memorizing scripture. There is a Catholic Edition that includes all the books.

The Jerusalem Bible is also acceptable, but is not the one read in formal liturgical services.

I am sure that spending time in the library here will answer a lot of your questions. Also, feel free to post any questions you may have here.

 

[RobHom]

Rachel, the Bible that I actually prefer over all others… is the Douay-Rheims Bible which was translated from the Latin Vulgate. You can access the D-R on line here: drbo.org/index.htm And if you are a student of Latin, the Latin Vulgate is also accessible from that same home page.

I like the D-R because it is a more concise translation…and it hasn’t suffered what I call the “modern linguistic revisions” that many Bibles have…which can change context…and in some cases confuse the meanings of scriptures.

 

[RobHom]

No, I am not lost. I really am learning a lot from this. As I said in my post, the question was posed to myself. I was looking for responses and a Catholic understanding. You have no idea just how much I appreciate this. I learn so much from reading from others. The analysis is absolutely wonderful.

No appologies, but a huge thank you!

Fundamentalist… If you have not had a chance to read the books that are contained in the Apocrypha… you can go to this link and access the Douay-Rheims Bible…a direct translation of the Latin Vulgate…it has all of the books in it, and I think you will find the Apocryphal books very interesting. While they may not be considered “inspired”…they are very inspirational, and good reading. My favorite is the Book of Wisdom. drbo.org/index.htm

 

[guanophore]

I’ve enjoyed reading the NIV for years, even though I’m Catholic. If the New International Version has been published in a Catholic Edition, I’ve never seen one. In reading the introductory notes for the NIV, it seems every mainstream Christian church except the Catholics had a hand in developing the NIV.

I’ve also never seen an NIV with the Deuterocanonical books (aka the Apocrypha). I wish they would put out such an edition.

I like the NIV also, but all of the commentary, introductory notes, and footnotes in every version I have seen have anti-Catholic material in them.