Roman Catholic Bible question?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Little_Mac
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Little_Mac

Guest
I’ve been reading the KJB, and I had just assumed this was the official catholic bible until just recently I found out otherwise. Can someone clarify the differences and what the Catholic Bible is and where I can buy it? Is there a certain translation I should get?

Pardon my ignorance, I’m new to this whole thing. Thanks!
 
The problem with saying something like “the official Catholic Bible” is that you’re making a presumption not only about the source from which a translation is made, but the target language to which a translation is made!

In English, the New American Bible is used in liturgies in the U.S.A. (you can find it at usccb.org/bible/);😉 the Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition (and the RSV-CE2) are good translations – the Ignatius Study Bible is a particularly good one.

“Protestant” Bibles tend to omit a number of Old Testament books that are present in Catholic versions and which were historically present in early Christian Scriptures. In addition, there may be some translation differences in various New Testament passages.

Hope this helps…
 
Little_Mac said:
I’ve been reading the KJB, and I had just assumed this was the official catholic bible until just recently I found out otherwise. Can someone clarify the differences and what the Catholic Bible is and where I can buy it? Is there a certain translation I should get?

Pardon my ignorance, I’m new to this whole thing. Thanks!
Click to expand...
Just make sure it says Catholic Edition to any bible you look at.

One other thing…look for this:

The “Imprimatur” and “Nihil Obstat” on the front pages…meaning these have been reviewed and are not against Catholic teaching.

Somebody’s name should indicate who granted the imprimatur and nihil obstat.
 
The biggest difference between Catholic and Protestant Bibles is that Protestant Bibles have fewer books. Another difference will be in the notes. Protestant Bibles don’t always teach things in line with Catholic beliefs.

Look for the book of Tobit and the books of 1 Macabees and 2 Macabees toward the end of the Old Testament and you likely have a Catholic bible. Most Catholic Bibles should say “Catholic” right on it anyway.

A picture of the Pope in the first few pages is a dead givaway. 😃

I like the Revised Standard Version because it is easy to read and many Protestants use it as well. Look for the RSV-CE (Catholic Edition) or the RSV-2CE (Second Catholic Edition) but don’t get too worked up over which one.

The New American Bible (NAB) is what we use at Mass in the US.

If you like more traditional KJV type language then a Douay-Rheims will read similarly but they are more difficult to find.

-Tim-
 
pablope said:
Just make sure it says Catholic Edition to any bible you look at.

One other thing…look for this:

The “Imprimatur” and “Nihil Obstat” on the front pages…meaning these have been reviewed and are not against Catholic teaching.

Somebody’s name should indicate who granted the imprimatur and nihil obstat.
Click to expand...
Note that the “Imprimatur” and “Nihil Obstat” on the front pages are applicable to other religious books, not just the Bible.

Another quick way to check if a Bible is Catholic is to look at the table of contents and see if the Apocrypha books are present. These Old Testament books were removed by Martin Luther, and the various other Protestant denominations have followed suit. The books that are present in the Catholic Bible but not the Protestant Bibles are Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Wisdom (of Solomon), Sirach, and Baruch. Parts of existing books were also removed including Psalm 151 (from Psalms), parts of the Book of Esther, Susanna (from Daniel as chapter 13), and Bel and the Dragon (from Daniel as chapter 14).

DGB
 
The Old Testament in a Catholic Bible contains five additional inspired books than your typical KJB, namely, Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, and Baruch, as well as some additional verses or chapters in Esther and Daniel.
 
TimothyH said:
The biggest difference between Catholic and Protestant Bibles is that Protestant Bibles have fewer books. Another difference will be in the notes. Protestant Bibles don’t always teach things in line with Catholic beliefs.
Click to expand...
Not just the notes, but the theological perspective of translation is perhaps the biggest, and most serious, difference. For example, John 3:3 – Catholic “born from above”; Protestant “born again.”

The term “born again” may not appear in the Bible. The Greek phrase often translated “born again” (gennatha anothen) occurs twice in the Bible—John 3:3 and 3:7—and there is a question of how it should be translated. The Greek word anothen sometimes can be translated “again,” but in the New Testament, it most often means “from above.” In the King James Version, the only two times it is translated “again” are in John 3:3 and 3:7; every other time it is given a different rendering.

And then there’s the curious addition of “alone” in Martin Luther’s translation of Romans 3:28 …

Romans 3:28 is a key verse in the differences between traditional Protestants and Catholics. You will notice that Paul says a man is justified by faith (pistei in Greek). When Martin Luther translated the letter to the Romans into German in the sixteenth century, he added the word alone —but alone is not in the original Greek text. The phrase “faith alone” does occur in the New Testament: one time, in James 2:24. There the inspired apostle denies that justification is from faith alone. Let me quote it: “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.”

Just a couple of reasons to be quite wary of Protestant translations – and not just because they omit books. 🙂
 
David_Alexander said:
I have loved discovering Sirach and Wisdom 🙂
Click to expand...
Transubstantiation is clear in Wisdom 16 through 19. It speaks of the properties of matter being fundamentally changed, animals forgetting their proper nature, and elements switching places. It is a recollection of what God did through Moses during the Exodus from Egypt, much of which is a prefigurement of transubstantiation, and it is wonderful to read.

For the elements, in variable harmony among themselves, like strings of the harp, produce new melody, while the flow of music steadily persists. And this can be perceived exactly from a review of what took place. For land creatures were changed into water creatures, and those that swam went over on to the land. Fire in water maintained its own strength, and water forgot its quenching nature; Flames, by contrast, neither consumed the flesh of the perishable animals that went about in them, nor melted the icelike, quick-melting kind of ambrosial food. (Wisdom 19:18-21)

Percieved exactly… I love it. Catholics instinctively understand the linking of the manna from heaven with the Eucharist and the reference to ***ambrosial food ***is clear.

Jesus even uses a passage from the Book of Sirach to teach about almsgiving and detachment from love of material goods.

*When Jesus heard this he said to him, “There is still one thing left for you: sell all that you have and distribute it to the poor, and you will have a treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” (Luke 18:22)

Dispose of your treasure according to the commandments of the Most High,
and that will profit you more than the gold.
Store up almsgiving in your treasury,
and it will save you from every evil.
(Sirach 29:11)*

Some claim that the dueterocanonical books are not referenced in the New Testament. That couldn’t be further from the truth.

Protestant Bibles without 1 Macabees and 1 Macabees treat the 490 year period between the prophet Daneil and Jesus Christ as if nothing happened in the world or as if God was taking a nap the whole time. This was the time when Alexander the Great tried to hellenize the world, tried to impose Greek culture and religion to the entire known world by force. The Isralites got so caught up in Greek culture that some of them had their circumcision surgically reversed.

…and some of the people eagerly went to the king. He authorized them to observe the ordinances of the Gentiles. So they built a gymnasium in Jerusalem, according to Gentile custom, and removed the marks of circumcision, and abandoned the holy covenant. They joined with the Gentiles and sold themselves to do evil. (1 Macabees 1:13-15)

Reversing the mark of circumcision was a called Epispasm and was a sign of apostacy from the Jewish faith. This was a time when there was great apostacy and the Macabeean revolt was in response to that apostacy. The books of 1 Macabees and 2 Macabees are very rich in history, theology and teaching about the coming Messiah.

I heard some Evangelicals discuss the seven books not in the Protestant Bible and one said, “I read them. There isn’t much in them.” I was beside myself and had to hold myself back.

A Bible really is incomplete without these books.

-Tim-
 
Splagchnizomai said:
Not just the notes, but the theological perspective of translation is perhaps the biggest, and most serious, difference. For example, John 3:3 – Catholic “born from above”; Protestant “born again.”

The term “born again” may not appear in the Bible. The Greek phrase often translated “born again” (gennatha anothen) occurs twice in the Bible—John 3:3 and 3:7—and there is a question of how it should be translated. The Greek word anothen sometimes can be translated “again,” but in the New Testament, it most often means “from above.” In the King James Version, the only two times it is translated “again” are in John 3:3 and 3:7; every other time it is given a different rendering.

And then there’s the curious addition of “alone” in Martin Luther’s translation of Romans 3:28 …

Romans 3:28 is a key verse in the differences between traditional Protestants and Catholics. You will notice that Paul says a man is justified by faith (pistei in Greek). When Martin Luther translated the letter to the Romans into German in the sixteenth century, he added the word alone —but alone is not in the original Greek text. The phrase “faith alone” does occur in the New Testament: one time, in James 2:24. There the inspired apostle denies that justification is from faith alone. Let me quote it: “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.”

Just a couple of reasons to be quite wary of Protestant translations – and not just because they omit books. 🙂
Click to expand...
In all fairness, is the word alone in Romans 3 still in Protestant Bibles? I seem to recall that Luther’s idea met with some resistance to the point where it is not there today but really don’t know. Can anyone confirm if it is there are not?

Your other point about above vs again is a good point and highlights the reason why we need to use translations approved by the Church. It’s not just about missing books.

-Tim-
 
TimothyH said:
Transubstantiation is clear in Wisdom 16 through 19. It speaks of the properties of matter being fundamentally changed, animals forgetting their proper nature, and elements switching places. It is a recollection of what God did through Moses during the Exodus from Egypt, much of which is a prefigurement of transubstantiation, and it is wonderful to read.

For the elements, in variable harmony among themselves, like strings of the harp, produce new melody, while the flow of music steadily persists. And this can be perceived exactly from a review of what took place. For land creatures were changed into water creatures, and those that swam went over on to the land. Fire in water maintained its own strength, and water forgot its quenching nature; Flames, by contrast, neither consumed the flesh of the perishable animals that went about in them, nor melted the icelike, quick-melting kind of ambrosial food. (Wisdom 19:18-21)

Percieved exactly… I love it. Ambrosia was a food which Greeks believed the Gods ate. It was brought to the Gods by doves. Ambrosia gave the God’s immortality. Catholics instinctively understand the linking of the manna from heaven with the Eucharist and the reference to ambrosial food to manna and the Eucharist is clear.

Jesus even uses a passage from the Book of Sirach to teach about almsgiving and detachment from love of material goods.

When Jesus heard this he said to him, “There is still one thing left for you: sell all that you have and distribute it to the poor, and you will have a treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” (Luke 18:22)

Dispose of your treasure according to the commandments of the Most High,
and that will profit you more than the gold.
Store up almsgiving in your treasury,
and it will save you from every evil.
(Sirach 29:11)

Some claim that the dueterocanonical books are not referenced in the New Testament. That couldn’t be further from the truth.

Protestant Bibles without 1 Macabees and 1 Macabees treat the 490 year period between the prophet Daneil and Jesus Christ as if nothing happened in the world or as if God was taking a nap the whole time. This was the time when Alexander the Great tried to hellenize the world, tried to impose Greek culture and religion to the entire known world by force. The Isralites got so caught up in Greek culture that some of them had their circumcision surgically reversed.

…and some of the people eagerly went to the king. He authorized them to observe the ordinances of the Gentiles. So they built a gymnasium in Jerusalem, according to Gentile custom, and removed the marks of circumcision, and abandoned the holy covenant. They joined with the Gentiles and sold themselves to do evil. (1 Macabees 1:13-15)

Reversing the mark of circumcision was a called Epispasm and was a sign of apostacy from the Jewish faith. This was a time when there was great apostacy and the Macabeean revolt was in response to that apostacy. The books of 1 Macabees and 2 Macabees are very rich in history, theology and teaching about the coming Messiah.

I heard some Evangelicals discuss the seven books not in the Protestant Bible and one said, “I read them. There isn’t much in them.” I was beside myself and had to hold myself back.

A Bible really is incomplete without these books.

-Tim-
Click to expand...
 
Gorgias said:
The problem with saying something like “the official Catholic Bible” is that you’re making a presumption not only about the source from which a translation is made, but the target language to which a translation is made!
Click to expand...
The official Catholic Bible is the Latin Vulgate, translated by St. Jerome around 400AD (but not given the “official” title until the Council of Trent 1545-1563).
 
Splagchnizomai said:
Not just the notes, but the theological perspective of translation is perhaps the biggest, and most serious, difference. For example, John 3:3 – Catholic “born from above”; Protestant “born again.”

The term “born again” may not appear in the Bible. The Greek phrase often translated “born again” (gennatha anothen) occurs twice in the Bible—John 3:3 and 3:7—and there is a question of how it should be translated. The Greek word anothen sometimes can be translated “again,” but in the New Testament, it most often means “from above.” In the King James Version, the only two times it is translated “again” are in John 3:3 and 3:7; every other time it is given a different rendering.

Just a couple of reasons to be quite wary of Protestant translations – and not just because they omit books. 🙂
Click to expand...
Translation issues such as these mentioned and the way most Catholic Bibles use the word “tradition” where the Protestant translators shun that usage where possible for obvious reasons and translate the same word as “teaching”. That aside there is the following:

I work at a mainly Protestant Christian Book store and as the one and only Catholic I have had to really study this subject. As an English woman I was really surprised to find out that the original 1611 KJV had the complete list ( or cannon) of books both the first cannon and the second cannon known by Catholics as the Deutero Canoniacle books and by Protestants as the Apocrypha. The following site gives a very good list of the books in both the Old, New and 2nd Cannon/Apocryophal books as well as a very brief outline as to why Protestants have excluded them in the last 100 years AND why some are now purchasing either a separate edition of the Apocrypha or new ‘protestant’ Bibles that include the Apocrypha, due to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611-Bible/
I was also shocked to find our that King James himself actually made a decree saying that if anyone REMOVED the Apocrypha it would be a penalty of death for them!! well they did in the 1800s.

To those who say buy a Bible that you are comfortable with because then you will read it. I have to disagree to a certain extent because validity of translators DOES matter to dissemination of the truth verses things being lost in translation and an attempt to twist , hide or deny the truth. Also as others have mentioned the side or study notes can sway or skew a persons understanding or a certain passage. So if your are reading a Bible which has obviously anti-Catholic commentary you are already getting a biased understanding of the scriptures
Also please understand that in fact it is only the original scriptures that are truly understood to be inspired by the Holy Spirit and the list of the Books in the Bible as established by the Council after Jerome’s translation of the Vulgate …someone smarter than me tell us when and which please.

Apparently there is a new book out in English that has compiled and translated many of the Early Church Father’s commentaries on various scriptures. Now THAT would be an awesome commentary to have!!
 
lutherlic said:
The official Catholic Bible is the Latin Vulgate, translated by St. Jerome around 400AD (but not given the “official” title until the Council of Trent 1545-1563).
Click to expand...
So, what do you assert that the description “official” means, given that the Vulgate isn’t what is read in vernacular Masses, and isn’t what is the sole source for contemporary translations of the Bible?
 
Gorgias said:
So, what do you assert that the description “official” means, given that the Vulgate isn’t what is read in vernacular Masses, and isn’t what is the sole source for contemporary translations of the Bible?
Click to expand...
Gorgias, I was simply noting that we do indeed have an “official” Bible, as decided at the Council of Trent. Nothing has transpired since that time to change this. Also, this obviously does not imply that it is the only Bible read at Mass or in some way the most appropriate Bible translation for common use (since relatively few people know Latin).

The Vulgate is the Bible translated by St. Jerome and the basis for the canonization of the Bible itself (around 400). That it remains our official translation of the Bible (from Greek, Hebrew, some Aramaic) bears a strong witness to the stability of our teaching.
 
I am amazed that Protestant bibles have left out so many books. I thought that the only difference was that Catholic bibles have the apocrypha. I didn’t know that the translations were slightly different, either 😦
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top