Protestant bible?

[Isaiah45_9]

Oh, Jose. :nope::nope:

Jon

 

[Razanir]

Interesting. This then must be applied to St. Jerome, Eusebius, Cardinal Cajetan, and numerous other Catholics through the centuries that exercised their Catholic privilege to question the canon. Just as Jerome included them, so did Luther.

And admittedly, St. Jerome questioning the additions to Esther is why we have such a weird numbering scheme for it. Chs. 11-16 are interspersed throughout the book. The weirdest being that it starts with 11:2 and ends with 11:1.

 

[JonNC]

=Judas Thaddeus;11097687]The Pope at the time ordered Jerome to include the books so he did, simple.
Luther included the books as well, but added a disclaimer to the section that
the books are good to read, but that they were not Scripture.
I stand corrected about this Cajetan, nevertheless that doesn’t prove anything,
as he was a scholar, not of any significant authority in the Catholic Church.

It only proves that Catholics, before Trent had the privilege to do what Luther did. Luther didn’t need an order from the pope to include them, and St. Jerome also did not believe them to be canonical.

Okay, now support that claim.

I said I think, because my knowledge is anecdotal, based on what Catholics here have said.

The Council of Trent in regards to the Canon was nothing more than a reaffirmation, as many other councils before that, and the Canon was closed far earlier than you claim.
Support your claim.

Hippo, Carthage, etc. were local synods, not binding on the whole Church, or at least that is what I have been told by Orthodox Christians who, again, have always had a more expansive canon.

To the OP, I apologize for the derailing of your thread. My advice, since you plan to be Catholic is to make sure you have a Bible that includes all 73 books, or acquire a supplement containing the Deuterocanon.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=809279&page=2

Randy Carson: I got the following in an email from Gary Michuta, who is an expert on these matters:

The Canon and the Council
Refuting the Argument that Canon was not established until the Council of Trent
By Gary Michuta

Today, some Protestants are arguing that Luther did not subtract books from the Canon of Scripture, because the canon was not officially adopted until the Council of Trent which began in 1545. Since the canon was not formally recognized prior to Luther’s rejection of the Deuterocanonicals, it is not correct to say that he subtracted books from the Bible.

This type of argument is quickly beginning to become a favorite among our separated brethren. They want to divert attention away from how these books were accepted within Christianity and focus instead on technical language in regards to their definition by the Church.

The fact of the matter is that even if something like the definition given at Trent had happened before Luther’s day, Luther would have rejected it as being in error, and Protestants wouldn’t have abandoned Luther because of his position any more than they abandoned Luther when he brushed aside other councils. In other words, this argument really isn’t about the legitimacy of the Protestant position, but rather it is a form of propaganda to make it look like the Church is dishonest.

Probably the most important council to bring up is the Council of Florence, which promulgated a decreed on canon of Scripture on Feb. 4, 1441. Florence’s decree states that the Catholic canon is given by the Holy Spirit and the Church accepts and venerates them. In terms of solemnity, this decree is greater than the previous ones. However, in terms of authority it is just as authoritative as the rest.

In 1519, Johann Eck debated Luther and pointed out to him that the Church had already confirmed that the Deuterocanon was canonical Scripture and he explicitly cited Florence as a proof of this. What was Luther’s response? Was it that the Church has authoritatively defined the canon yet so everything is still up for grabs? This is what the Protestant historian H. H. Howorth says about what Luther said:

“He [Luther] says he knows that he Church had accepted this book [2 Maccabees], but the Church could not give a greater authority and strength to a book than it already possessed by its own virtue.” (Gary Michuta, Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger, p. 251).

So, Luther knew the Church accepted the Deuterocanon as canonical Scripture. He was aware of Florence and the other decrees (apparently), but by this point he believed that Church councils could err. Moreover, Luther seems to have been working on a principle that he would more explicitly develop a few years later; namely, that a book is canonical and authoritative to the extent that Luther heard “Christ preached” in it.

Now what about Trent? Why do all these sources say that it wasn’t until Trent that we had a definitive decision on the canon? First, the fathers at Trent decided early on to adopt the canon of Florence without comment. For them, the issue was already closed in previous councils. However, since some otherwise solid Catholics have seem to adopted Jerome’s views on the Deuterocanonicals over and against these previous councils something more was necessary to drive the point home that the matter has already been closed hundreds of years early. So, Trent attached an anathema to its decree on the canon. Trent wasn’t the first council or Church authority to define the canon, but it was the first to anathematize those who did not follow the canon. In terms of the authority of the canon, nothing was really changed, but the solemnity of Trent’s definition was, because of the anathema, far greater than any previous council.

My understanding is the Michuta provides a very good defense of the Catholic position on the issue. That Luther knew that the Church generally accepted the Deuterocanon does not exclude his, or anyone else’s privilege prior to Trent to question them at that time.

Jon

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

It only proves that Catholics, before Trent had the privilege to do what Luther did. Luther didn’t need an order from the pope to include them, and St. Jerome also did not believe them to be canonical.
I said I think, because my knowledge is anecdotal, based on what Catholics here have said.
Hippo, Carthage, etc. were local synods, not binding on the whole Church, or at least that is what I have been told by Orthodox Christians who, again, have always had a more expansive canon.
To the OP, I apologize for the derailing of your thread. My advice, since you plan to be Catholic is to make sure you have a Bible that includes all 73 books, or acquire a supplement containing the Deuterocanon.
Jon

Come on, give me something.
Not just “someone told me this” or “I said I think”, give me authentic clear documentation
that the Roman Catholic Church was very flexible up on the Canon up until the Council of
Trent. The burden of proof rests upon you.

Oh, and I’m sorry too for getting off the thread subject. I replied earlier, providing more information on the difference between the Catholic and Protestant Bibles, but now here’s my recommendation: Get the New American Standard Bible.

 

[pablope]

My understanding is the Michuta provides a very good defense of the Catholic position on the issue. That Luther knew that the Church generally accepted the Deuterocanon does not exclude his, or anyone else’s privilege prior to Trent to question them at that time.

Jon

Agreed…Jon…but Jerome, later on, considered it to be somewhat sinful to continue doing so…because the Church has spoken…be it via local synods or what not.

I had to remove this (below) from the Machuta letter to make it fit in one post…

*However, what about the claim? Here is my two cents on the matter: After St. Jerome became the first Christian to cause a major stir by attempting to reject the Deuterocanon as Apocrypha, there were a series of local councils that met in North Africa to reaffirm the Christian Old Testament and New Testament. These were the councils of Hippo (393), Carthage I (397), and Carthage IV (419). All three of these reaffirmed the Catholic canon as canonical and divine Scripture. However, they were local councils that were confirmed by the Pope. Therefore, they were authoritatively defined but not with the solemnity of that of an Ecumenical Council. *

 

[JonNC]

Come on, give me something.
Not just “someone told me this” or “I said I think”, give me authentic clear documentation
that the Roman Catholic Church was very flexible up on the Canon up until the Council of
Trent. The burden of proof rests upon you.

Oh, and I’m sorry too for getting off the thread subject. I replied earlier, providing more information on the difference between the Catholic and Protestant Bibles, but now here’s my recommendation: Get the New American Standard Bible.

You’re the Catholic here, Judas. Let me know how Erasmus,** Cardinal **Cajetan, and others were disciplined for their positions. Show me where the CC criticizes the Orthodox canon(s). Do so, and I shall accept evidence of Catholic teaching.

Jon

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

You’re the Catholic here, Judas. Let me know how Erasmus, Cardinal Cajetan, and others were disciplined for their positions. Show me where the CC criticizes the Orthodox canon(s). Do so, and I shall accept evidence of Catholic teaching.
Jon

The burden of proof IS on you, because you’re of the newer splinter group in
Christianity, it is up to you to disprove the Catholic Church, not the Catholic
Church which came first, but if you have nothing, I suppose I’ll take a shot…

Well, I believe one of the earliest documents declaring the full
Canon is the Decree of Gelasius and the Decree of Damasus,
long before the Council of Trent.

I hope the two decrees I provided above are accepted by you,
they are evidence enough.

Now, where’s your proof? Don’t deal with what I just
gave, but it’s your turn to provide documented proof.

 

[JonNC]

=Judas Thaddeus;11098251]The burden of proof IS on you, because you’re of the newer splinter group in
Christianity, it is up to you to disprove the Catholic Church, not the Catholic
Church which came first, but if you have nothing, I suppose I’ll take a shot…

I’m not trying to disprove anything, other than the mistaken comment by another poster that Luther removed 7 books and intended to remove others.

Well, I believe one of the earliest documents declaring the full
Canon is the Decree of Gelasius and the Decree of Damasus,
long before the Council of Trent.

I hope the two decrees I provided above are accepted by you,
they are evidence enough.

Are these two decrees truly ecumenical councils?

Now, where’s your proof? Don’t deal with what I just
gave, but it’s your turn to provide documented proof.

Judas, I don’t have to prove anything, because I didn’t make any claims. I know the CC today uses Hippo and Carthage as evidence that the canon was set long before Trent, but that seems to apply only to the CC, as the Orthodox still have an expanded canon. Further, it makes no difference to me. I have no problem with the DC’s, and as a Lutheran, think they should be included, as they have been in the west for centuries, and they still are in Lutheran Bibles in Germany and other non-English parts of the world.
The fact that American Lutherans have mistakenly accepted protestant English Bibles that lack the DC’s is lamentable, and should be corrected.

Jon

 

[Khalid]

The only difference between the Catholic Bible and the Protestant Bible is a few books. Instead of buying a Catholic bible, you can simply purchase a book that contains the extra books that the Catholic Bible contains. These books care called the Apocrypha, or the Deuterocanonical Books. That way you can still enjoy your Protestant bible and also read the other Catholic books as well.

I have included an example of a book that you can purchase.

amazon.ca/Apocrypha-Deuterocanonical-Books-Old-Testament/dp/0801072204/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1376447942&sr=8-3&keywords=apocrypha

This is my solution. I use almost solely the KJV, NKJV, and NASB in English translation, along with a few different versions of the “Apocrypha”, such as the Lutheran Annotated Apocrypha in ESV. One of the benefits of the KJV is that many editions can be found that have the full canon (such as the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible), something that can not be said for the NASB, NKJV, or ESV.

 

[JonNC]

This is my solution. I use almost solely the KJV, NKJV, and NASB in English translation, along with a few different versions of the “Apocrypha”, such as the Lutheran Annotated Apocrypha in ESV. One of the benefits of the KJV is that many editions can be found that have the full canon (such as the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible), something that can not be said for the NASB, NKJV, or ESV.

How do you like the Lutheran ESV “apocrypha”?

Jon

 

[concretecamper]

If Luther had the love and respect for the papacy as Cardinal Cajetan and St Jerome had, thing would have been a lot different. So is it really appropriate to compare Luther with these two men in support of his actions?

 

[Razanir]

The only difference between the Catholic Bible and the Protestant Bible is a few books. Instead of buying a Catholic bible, you can simply purchase a book that contains the extra books that the Catholic Bible contains. These books care called the Apocrypha, or the Deuterocanonical Books. That way you can still enjoy your Protestant bible and also read the other Catholic books as well.

There’s more differences than just that.

1. What’s commonly called the Apocrypha also includes the Prayer of Manasseh and a few other texts that Catholics would also consider Apocryphal
2. A Protestant Bible will typically include “for thine is the kingdom…” while a Catholic version won’t. Douay-Rhiems v KJV
3. Protestant Bibles are more likely to include inclusive language
4. Protestant Bibles are more likely to say something like “highly favored one” instead of “full of grace”
5. Similar to 2, there are other assorted phrases included in one side but not the other (it goes both ways)

 

[Khalid]

How do you like the Lutheran ESV “apocrypha”?

Jon

It’s my favourite and primary edition for a separate volume of Apocrypha in actual use. (I often read the books in the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible, where the missing italics don’t matter as much, but, it must be said, the KJV translators to which were entrusted the Apocrypha did a poor job compared to those entrusted the protocanon.)

Many Catholics (including myself) find it ironic that the deuterocanonicals are treated with far more reverence in the Lutheran Annotated Apocrypha (Concordia, nd), than they are in either the NAB/RE or N/JB. I actually am not a great fan of the ESV Apocrypha, preferring the renderings in the KJV, the DRC, the RSV-CE, and the RSV-2CE, but have found no volume (after searching diligently) which contains good annotations and introductions to those books as well.

(Even commentaries are rare: Ancient Christian Commentary did all books of the Apocrypha in one 300-page commentary, Anchor Bible did a seven-volume series covering the expanded Apocrypha with several flaws, Haydock compiles virtually all of the Patristic testimony on the books, but no one else has even truly attempted a modern commentary on the deuterocanon to the level LCMS did, not even the authors of the Navarre Bible OT. Not all if this is for lack of trying, as, as stated, Patristic testimony and commentary on these books is very thin on the ground compared to things like Genesis and John and Psalms and Isaiah. But none have attempted a modern commentary on the Apocrypha instead of just a catena of the Fathers [discounting the few odd *Hermeneia volumes]. Brazos Theological Commentary, the most traditional type of commentary published in years, passes over the Apocrypha, as does every other series of commentaries.)

I also like the companion volume, the Lutheran Study Bible (ESV, Concordia 2009), with the main caveats being “it’s ESV” (one of my least-favoured favoured English translation, compared to N/KJV and NASB), “it’s two-column”, “the text is too small”, “it’s an expensive hardcover with no good leather editions”.

I don’t personally find the law and gospel dialectic helpful most of the time, but, ignoring the icons which denote passages as either “law” or “gospel” (similar to the icons for tradition, etc. in the ICSB-NT), the Bible is ten times more orthodox and three times more Catholic (and not just “catholic”) than any full modern-language annotated Bible available to English-speaking Catholics. For modern-language study Bibles, TLSB is high on my list. It is highly Christocentric and engaged with the Fathers more than any modern study Bible, far more than even the Orthodox Study Bible, but does not engage with the Fathers on the level of Haydock’s commentary compiled out of the Fathers (which comes only in unwieldy editions, and only with the DRC text).

 

[JonNC]

It’s my favourite and primary edition for a separate volume of Apocrypha in actual use. (I often read the books in the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible, where the missing italics don’t matter as much, but, it must be said, the KJV translators to which were entrusted the Apocrypha did a poor job compared to those entrusted the protocanon.)

Many Catholics (including myself) find it ironic that the deuterocanonicals are treated with far more reverence in the Lutheran Annotated Apocrypha (Concordia, nd), than they are in either the NAB/RE or N/JB. I actually am not a great fan of the ESV Apocrypha, preferring the renderings in the KJV, the DRC, the RSV-CE, and the RSV-2CE, but have found no volume (after searching diligently) which contains good annotations and introductions to those books as well.

(Even commentaries are rare: Ancient Christian Commentary did all books of the Apocrypha in one 300-page commentary, Anchor Bible did a seven-volume series covering the expanded Apocrypha with several flaws, Haydock compiles virtually all of the Patristic testimony on the books, but no one else has even truly attempted a modern commentary on the deuterocanon to the level LCMS did, not even the authors of the Navarre Bible OT. Not all if this is for lack of trying, as, as stated, Patristic testimony and commentary on these books is very thin on the ground compared to things like Genesis and John and Psalms and Isaiah. But none have attempted a modern commentary on the Apocrypha instead of just a catena of the Fathers [discounting the few odd *Hermeneia

volumes]. Brazos Theological Commentary, the most traditional type of commentary published in years, passes over the Apocrypha, as does every other series of commentaries.)

I also like the companion volume, the Lutheran Study Bible (ESV, Concordia 2009), with the main caveats being “it’s ESV” (one of my least-favoured favoured English translation, compared to N/KJV and NASB), “it’s two-column”, “the text is too small”, “it’s an expensive hardcover with no good leather editions”.

I don’t personally find the law and gospel dialectic helpful most of the time, but, ignoring the icons which denote passages as either “law” or “gospel” (similar to the icons for tradition, etc. in the ICSB-NT), the Bible is ten times more orthodox and three times more Catholic (and not just “catholic”) than any full modern-language annotated Bible available to English-speaking Catholics. For modern-language study Bibles, TLSB is high on my list. It is highly Christocentric and engaged with the Fathers more than any modern study Bible, far more than even the Orthodox Study Bible, but does not engage with the Fathers on the level of Haydock’s commentary compiled out of the Fathers (which comes only in unwieldy editions, and only with the DRC text).

CPH should feel very good about this kind of review.

Thanks,
Jon

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hello everyone,

I have been reading a protestant bible since I converted to the christian faith about a year ago. I have been raised as a catholic and a couple of months ago I chose to be catholic (again). Now I am starting to wonder if it may be sinful to read a protestant bible instead of a catholic one. Or would it be inappropriate? I like this bible translation because it is close to the original text. In my country there is only one real catholic translation, but I find the cover of that bible childish and unprofessional. Could anyone give me some advise?

Thank you,

Check out the Revised Standard Version (Catholic Edition).

It’s a sad fact that some Protestant translations minimize (or simply mistranslate) words and phrases that support Catholic theology.

 

[Khalid]

CPH should feel very good about this kind of review.

Thanks,
Jon

LOL.

 

[Khalid]

Check out the Revised Standard Version (Catholic Edition).

It’s a sad fact that some Protestant translations minimize (or simply mistranslate) words and phrases that support Catholic theology.

It’s an even sadder fact that many Protestant and Catholic translations minimize or simply mistranslate (or even translate a false, non-existent text by means of conjectural emendation, which can be interpreted to mean, “I will make the Hebrew say what I want it to say”) words, phrases, and passages consistently in such a way as to exclude all traditional Christian theology, involving miracles, the Deity of Christ, the Virgin Birth, the unity of the authorship of Scripture, prophecy, etc.

The worst example of this, as is well known, is the New World Translation, but the notes in the NAB/RE are close, and the NRSV text (disregarding NOAB/NISB notes) is in the same league, even if not in the same ball-park. The RSV itself did this with selective use of archaic pronouns; the NRSV did it (I’m not sure if it was intentional), possibly as a side-effect of the neutering (which, by itself, eliminates much prophecy, as Christ is not an “it” or a “they”) and general “modernization” (in the Cartesian-Spinozan sense) of the text. I could go on for a long time, for the length of a book, about these and others - there are no perfect English translations, but the N/KJV, NASB, and DRC come close; even the NIV (especially NIV 1984), RSV-2CE, ESV, and NLT(!) are respectable.

As Catholics, for some reason, we always get the worst of twenty-years-outdated liberal Biblical scholarship in our translations and annotations. We get liberal home-grown (Catholic) versions (pretty much everything but the DRC, and, to a lesser extent, the RSV-2CE) which are, shall we say, “strongly and directly influenced” by the liberal Protestant versions, and also the liberal Protestant versions themselves (N/RSV, CEB [God forbid]), but not the good Protestant versions (see above). It’s annoying. I should try to rectify it, but it will require a concerted effort beyond one man.

 

[Porknpie]

It only proves that Catholics, before Trent had the privilege to do what Luther did. Luther didn’t need an order from the pope to include them, and St. Jerome also did not believe them to be canonical.

I said I think, because my knowledge is anecdotal, based on what Catholics here have said.

Hippo, Carthage, etc. were local synods, not binding on the whole Church, or at least that is what I have been told by Orthodox Christians who, again, have always had a more expansive canon.

To the OP, I apologize for the derailing of your thread. My advice, since you plan to be Catholic is to make sure you have a Bible that includes all 73 books, or acquire a supplement containing the Deuterocanon.

Jon

Hi Jon,

Why do you recommend a Catholic bible with 73 books and not an Orthodox bible with up to 81?

How do you know who’s right?

 

[adf417]

Hi Jon,

Why do you recommend a Catholic bible with 73 books and not an Orthodox bible with up to 81?

How do you know who’s right?