Why are there seven books omitted?

  • Thread starter Thread starter still_learning_1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

still_learning_1

Guest
Hello all, I have a question… Why are there seven books omitted from the Protestant Bible?

Here is a passage from the bible that my mom handed down to me:
The Family Rosary Commemorative Edition of the Catholic Bible
issued in remembrance of the MARIAN YEAR
(Copyright 1957, 1954, 1953, 1952, 1950)

~
The standard Protestant Bible, called the King James Version, and the standard Catholic Bible, the Douay Version, differ in many ways. They are two independent translations; the wording is different. Moreover, they use different spellings for many of the proper names. The last book of the New Testament is called Revelation in the King James Version, and Apocalyspe in the Douay Bible. In the Old Testament the King James Version omits seven books, parts of two others, and changes many of the names. Below is a list of the Old Testament books according to the Catholic and Protestant versions:

**Catholic ______ Protestant **
**Bible _________ Bible **

Genesis _______ Genesis
Exodus ________ Exodus
Leviticus _______ Leviticus
Numbers _______ Numbers
Deuteronomy ___ Deuteronomy
Josue _________ Joshua
Judges ________ Judges
Ruth __________ Ruth
1 Kings ________ 1 Samual
2 Kings ________ 2 Samual
3 Kings ________ 1 Kings
4 Kings ________ 2 Kings
1 Paralipomenon __ 1 Chronicles
2 Paralipomenon __ 2 Chronicles
1 Esdras _______ Ezra
2 Esdras _______ Nehemiah
Tobias _________ (omitted)
Judith __________ (omitted)
Esther _________ Esther (part omitted)
Job ___________ Job
Psalms ________ Psalms
Proverbs _______ Proverbs
Ecclesiastes ____ Ecclesiastes
Canticle of Canticles _ Song of Solomon
Wisdom ________ (omitted)
Ecclesiasticus ___ (omitted)
Isaias _________ Isaiah
Jeremias _______ Jeremiah
Lamentations ___ Lamentations
Baruch ________ (omitted)
Ezechiel _______ Ezekiel
Daniel _________ Daniel (part omitted)
Osee __________ Hosea
Joel ___________ Joel
Amos __________ Amos
Abdias _________ Obadiah
Jonas __________ Jonah
Micheas ________ Micah
Nahum _________ Nahum
Habacuc ________ Habakkuk
Sophonias _______ Zephaniah
Aggeus _________ Haggai
Zacharias _______ Zechariah
Malachias _______ Malachi
1 Machabees ____ (omitted)
2 Machabees ____ (omitted)
~

I found some interesting background on the translations here: on Catholic.com

A brief excerpt:
~
They commonly claim that the King James is based on the only perfect set of manuscripts we have (a false claim; there is no perfect set of manuscripts; and the ones used for the KJV were compiled by a Catholic, Erasmus), that it is the only translation that avoids modern, liberal renderings, and that its translators were extremely saintly and scholarly men. Since the King James is also known as “the Authorized Version” (AV), its advocates sometimes argue that it is the only version to ever have been “authorized.” To this one may point out that it was only authorized in the Anglican church, which now uses other translations. For a still-in print critique of King James-onlyism, see D. A. Carson, The King James Version Debate, A Plea for Realism (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979).

As amusing as King James-onlyism may sound, some people take it very seriously. There is even a Catholic equivalent, which we might call “Douay-Rheims-onlyism.” The Douay-Rheims version, which predates the King James by a few years, (the complete KJV was published in 1611, but the complete Douay-Rheims in 1609) was the standard Bible for English-speaking Catholics until the twentieth century.

What many advocates of both King James-onlyism and Douay-Rheims-onlyism do not know is that neither Bible is the original issued in the 1600s. Over the last three centuries, numerous minor changes (for example, of spelling and grammar) have been made in the King James, with the result that most versions of the KJV currently on the market are significantly different from the original. This has led one publisher to recently re-issue the 1611 King James Version Bible.

The Douay-Rheims currently on the market is also not the original, 1609 version. It is technically called the “Douay-Challoner” version because it is a revision of the Douay-Rheims done in the mid-eighteenth century by Bishop Richard Challoner. He also consulted early Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, meaning that the Douay Bible currently on the market is not simply a translation of the Vulgate (which many of its advocates do not realize).
~

I still don’t know why seven books, and parts of two others, were omitted though. Any information is welcomed and appreciated. Thanks for your help. :cool:
 
40.png
still_learning:
Hello all, I have a question… Why are there seven books omitted from the Protestant Bible?
Click to expand...
Still Learning,

The excuse given is that they are not part of the Hebrew Old Testament, appearing only in the Greek Septuagint. The reason they were taken out is that II Maccabees refers to the Jewish practice of praying for the dead, which is taken by the Church as a reference to Purgatory. Martin Luther wanted to get rid of the doctrines about Purgatory and so couldn’t have it showing up in his Bible.
  • Liberian
 
Thank you Liberian, Since you are the first to answer, I have another question for you… 😉 Is there a section in this online forum for Bible study? I’m not as informed as I would like to be on the Bible and I am interested. (Please forgive my ignorance, I’m new here.) I saw the daily listings on the home page and just wondered if there was a designated discussion page. Thanks again, still_learning 🙂
 
Try St. Paul’s for a good online bible study. It’s led by Scott Hahn and certain others. Very good! All you have to do is give them your e-mail address.

Notworthy
 
I told my Baptist son the reason was that since he carries it everywhere he goes, it was getting heavy… so seven which often support Catholic theology were left home on range.:yup:
 
40.png
still_learning:
Thank you Liberian, Since you are the first to answer, I have another question for you… 😉 Is there a section in this online forum for Bible study? I’m not as informed as I would like to be on the Bible and I am interested. (Please forgive my ignorance, I’m new here.) I saw the daily listings on the home page and just wondered if there was a designated discussion page. Thanks again, still_learning 🙂
Click to expand...
While there isn’t a designated Bible study page in these forums, I invite you to visit my website (linked below) where, in addition to a weekly Bible study based on the Sunday readings, I have links to various on-line and other Bible resources
 
40.png
still_learning:
Excellent! Thanks JimG! 👍

Thank you also Notworthy and Fidelis for the
invitations, and MrS for that bit of humor. 😃

Have a wonderful day everyone! 👋
Click to expand...
The Septuagint translation of the Jewish scriptures into Greek was made in Alexandria about 200 BC. It was the standard Greek translation used at the time of the Apostles. The OT quotes in the NT are almost all from the Septuagint. About 90 AD the Masoretic translation of the Jewish scripture was made. It excluded anything not originally in Hebrew as well as anything later than about 250 BC. Note that this neatly excludes the NT which was being accepted as scripture at this time - Christianity was often still viewed as a Jewish sect at this time. Over time the Jews used the canon of the Masoretic text exclusively. The Orthodox church also uses the Septuagint canon as the basis for its Bible canon - though with some ambiguity involving a few books not accepted by Catholicism. Luther certainly had reason to want to exclude Maccabees II - he also wanted to exclude Jude, James, Revelation and one or more of John’s letters - a fact usually forgotten by Protestants. Note also, the original printing of the KJV used the Catholic canon - another issue lost in the mists of time to many Protestants.
 
Lots of good background explaining Protestant objections to the Apochrypha, but no one is answering the mail.

MrS is closest about weight.

The seven books of the Apochrypha found in Catholic bibles appear and disapper from Protestant bibles throughout post-reformation history.

tmbible.com/overview.htm

Note: The 1611 KJV bible actually contained more books than the current Catholic bible. The 1611 KJV includes books like Bel and the Dragon, not found in Catholic bibles.

etext.virginia.edu/kjv.browse.html

Around 1827, the British Bible Society was asked to finance the printing of bibles for Protestant missionary work. Due to their anti-Catholicism and the desire to print as many bibles at as low a cost as possible, the BBS decided to drop the Apochrypha.

This decision was later adopted by their brothers (biblical sense) at the American Bible Society in 1880.

Also, in 1885, the then Archbishop of Canterbury made the drop permanent for English versions of the KJV. Thus, due to this modern tradition, Protestant bibles generally have fewer OT books than Catholic bibles.

The trend is again reversing and the KJV is once again being printed with the Apochrypha restored.

cambridge.org/uk/bibles/kjv/camrefap.htm

The new Third Millenium bible, which is the latest update to the Protestant KJV, restores these missing books to their rightful place:

tmbible.com/overview.htm

It possible that, late in this millenium, the Protestant question may become why do Cathlics have fewer OT books, if the 1611 KJV is the model.
 
First Esdras, Second Esdras, Epistle of Jeremiah, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, Prayer of Manasseh, Prayer of Azariah, and Laodiceans are not today considered part of the Catholic canon - some, such as the Esdras books are considered part of the canon by some Orthodox churches.
 
40.png
johnnykins:
First Esdras, Second Esdras, Epistle of Jeremiah, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, Prayer of Manasseh, Prayer of Azariah, and Laodiceans are not today considered part of the Catholic canon - some, such as the Esdras books are considered part of the canon by some Orthodox churches.
Click to expand...
The Epistle of Jeremiah is the 6th. chapter of Baruch. Susanna is chapter 13 of Daniel, and Bel and the Dragon is chapter 14 of Daniel.

Incidentally, the story of Bel and the Dragon has parallels in an episode of the origianl Star Trek series, entitled “The Apple”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top