Why don't Catholic Bibles have the appendix included in the Latin Vulgate?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jas84173
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jas84173

Guest
This is interesting and I am sure I will get some answers so I thought I’d ask. The Latin Vulgate has as an appendix 3 and 4 Esdras ( although more commonly known in Common Bibles as 1 and 2 Esdras), and The Prayer of Mannaseh. Early editions of the D-R Bible included this appendix.
My question then is if the Latin Vulgate is the official Bible of the Church, why aren’t these three books included in modern Catholic Bibles to stay true to the Vulgate? Having appendixes is not unheard of. The Greek Bible has 4 Maccabees as an appendix. I just feel like they should be included in our Bibles, especially when in the Latin Vulgate it expresses that the books are not considered Inspired but are included lest they parish forever. So the Church has no issue with us reading these texts, it just rejected these three when coming up with the counter reformation and reaffirming which texts are Inspired and which are not.
 
jas84173 said:
… if the Latin Vulgate is the official Bible of the Church
Click to expand...
The Vulgate may be the *official text of scripture *for the Church but it is not the official bible of the Church. The “official” version of the bible for a particular country is usually decided by a bishop’s conference.
 
Tim_D said:
The Vulgate may be the *official text of scripture *for the Church but it is not the official bible of the Church. The “official” version of the bible for a particular country is usually decided by a bishop’s conference.
Click to expand...
That seems a little shaky. So if a particular country doesn’t like one of the canonical books they don’t have to include it in the Bible? So say the U.S.C.C.B. doesn’t want to put Revelation in the Bible they don’t have too? I think the answer is plainly of course they do. But what I’m saying is shouldn’t our Bibles have all of the texts in the Latin Vulgate? Isn’t that what makes us a universal church?
 
jas84173 said:
That seems a little shaky. So if a particular country doesn’t like one of the canonical books they don’t have to include it in the Bible? So say the U.S.C.C.B. doesn’t want to put Revelation in the Bible they don’t have too? I think the answer is plainly of course they do. But what I’m saying is shouldn’t our Bibles have all of the texts in the Latin Vulgate? Isn’t that what makes us a universal church?
Click to expand...
I think he only meant that most contemporary Catholic Bibles are not translated from the Vulgate.
 
jas84173 said:
That seems a little shaky. So if a particular country doesn’t like one of the canonical books they don’t have to include it in the Bible? So say the U.S.C.C.B. doesn’t want to put Revelation in the Bible they don’t have too? I think the answer is plainly of course they do. But what I’m saying is shouldn’t our Bibles have all of the texts in the Latin Vulgate? Isn’t that what makes us a universal church?
Click to expand...
Uh, no. There is no “official” text that is translated from the Vulgate because that would make it a translation of a translation. And to suggests that a bishop’s conference may decide to not put a certain book in the bible is just…dumb. We are a universal Church because of the the truths we profess, not because of the version of the bible we prefer.
 
Tim_D said:
Uh, no. There is no “official” text that is translated from the Vulgate because that would make it a translation of a translation. And to suggests that a bishop’s conference may decide to not put a certain book in the bible is just…dumb. We are a universal Church because of the the truths we profess, not because of the version of the bible we prefer.
Click to expand...
Exactly what I am saying. So if there are books in an appendix to the Latin Vulgate, why are we not entitled to view them in our Bibles? Not to mention all three are used in liturgy.
 
jas84173 said:
Exactly what I am saying. So if there are books in an appendix to the Latin Vulgate, why are we not entitled to view them in our Bibles? Not to mention all three are used in liturgy.
Click to expand...
You are entitled to view them all you want. But since they aren’t Canonical, and were simply an appendix in a particular translation, why should we expect to see them in every other translation? It would make no sense to say that ALL copies of the collective text making up the Canon of Scripture must include an appendix with some non-Canonical books in it.
 
ahs said:
You are entitled to view them all you want. But since they aren’t Canonical, and were simply an appendix in a particular translation, why should we expect to see them in every other translation? It would make no sense to say that ALL copies of the collective text making up the Canon of Scripture must include an appendix with some non-Canonical books in it.
Click to expand...
I don’t get why you are so hostile to it. I was just saying how I felt. Most common Bibles do include the books I’m talking about and note it’s in an appendix to the Latin Vulgate. If the council thought they shouldn’t be read they wouldn’t have put them in an appendix. 4 Esdras is conferred to in Liturgy as the Entrance Antiphon on the 2nd Sunday of Easter and Funeral Masses. In extraordinary Missal it is conferred on Tuesday after
Pentecost . 3 Esdras is conferred in the extraordinary Missal as the offertory for the votive mass for the election of a Pope. The Prayer of Mannaseh is cited in the responsory for the 14th Sunday of ordinary time in the Liturgy of the Hours. So can someone explain how they are not the word of God yet are included in the Liturgy? I’m really looking for answers because it confuses me how it isn’t Canon but is used liturgically which basically means in a context is the word of God.
 
You are entitled to read them, it just isn’t popular to print today because the Church isn’t adament it must be included and publishers prefer to print less to save a few bucks. You can still find the texts in specialized libraries, bookstores, etc if you’d like to study or read further
 
jas84173 said:
This is interesting and I am sure I will get some answers so I thought I’d ask. The Latin Vulgate has as an appendix 3 and 4 Esdras ( although more commonly known in Common Bibles as 1 and 2 Esdras), and The Prayer of Mannaseh. Early editions of the D-R Bible included this appendix.
My question then is if the Latin Vulgate is the official Bible of the Church, why aren’t these three books included in modern Catholic Bibles to stay true to the Vulgate? Having appendixes is not unheard of. The Greek Bible has 4 Maccabees as an appendix. I just feel like they should be included in our Bibles, especially when in the Latin Vulgate it expresses that the books are not considered Inspired but are included lest they parish forever. So the Church has no issue with us reading these texts, it just rejected these three when coming up with the counter reformation and reaffirming which texts are Inspired and which are not.
Click to expand...
Also, one thing to mention. The Latin Vulgate is one official text of the Church universal. But to be specific, it is official for the Latin Church, Eastern Catholic Churches use various official versions based on their patristic tradition.
 
SyroMalankara said:
You are entitled to read them, it just isn’t popular to print today because the Church isn’t adament it must be included and publishers prefer to print less to save a few bucks. You can still find the texts in specialized libraries, bookstores, etc if you’d like to study or read further
Click to expand...
Oh yah definitely they are in the NRSV w deuteroconicals books along with books Orthodox regard as scripture. This wasn’t about the availability it was just I was just asking that , why Catholic Bibles didn’t have them like the NABRE etc. It’s no biggie, just a question. That one guy was getting all heated like what I said was blasphemy but it really isn’t
 
jas84173 said:
So can someone explain how they are not the word of God yet are included in the Liturgy? I’m really looking for answers because it confuses me how it isn’t Canon but is used liturgically which basically means in a context is the word of God.
Click to expand...
You asked this very same question back in April, and got good answers. Unconvinced once again, then?
 
jas84173 said:
Oh yah definitely they are in the NRSV w deuteroconicals books along with books Orthodox regard as scripture. This wasn’t about the availability it was just I was just asking that , why Catholic Bibles didn’t have them like the NABRE etc. It’s no biggie, just a question. That one guy was getting all heated like what I said was blasphemy but it really isn’t
Click to expand...
The common English language Catholic Bibles in the USA are usually what the local Latin Churches require, since they are the vast majority. In the Middle East, India, Russia, the Peshitto, Septuagint, and other texts are translated into the local languages and are more common for Catholics as well as Orthodox (Eastern Catholics usually have the same as the Orthodox).
 
ahs said:
You are entitled to view them all you want. But since they aren’t Canonical, and were simply an appendix in a particular translation, why should we expect to see them in every other translation? It would make no sense to say that ALL copies of the collective text making up the Canon of Scripture must include an appendix with some non-Canonical books in it.
Click to expand...
jas84173 said:
I don’t get why you are so hostile to it. I was just saying how I felt.
Click to expand...
I’m not hostile to it. I’m just asking a valid question about it.
Most common Bibles do include the books I’m talking about and note it’s in an appendix to the Latin Vulgate. If the council thought they shouldn’t be read they wouldn’t have put them in an appendix.
Click to expand...
But does that mean that they should be in every translation? I don’t see why it would. If you prefer the ones with the appendix, nothing is stopping you from using those, right?
4 Esdras is conferred to in Liturgy as the Entrance Antiphon on the 2nd Sunday of Easter and Funeral Masses. In extraordinary Missal it is conferred on Tuesday after
Pentecost . 3 Esdras is conferred in the extraordinary Missal as the offertory for the votive mass for the election of a Pope. The Prayer of Mannaseh is cited in the responsory for the 14th Sunday of ordinary time in the Liturgy of the Hours. So can someone explain how they are not the word of God yet are included in the Liturgy? I’m really looking for answers because it confuses me how it isn’t Canon but is used liturgically which basically means in a context is the word of God.
Click to expand...
Why should “used in liturgy” equal “Canonical”? The Church obviously didn’t think something had to be in the Canon of Scripture in order to use it in the liturgy. A book/letter need not be “the inerrant written Word of God” in order for parts of it to be of good liturgical use, need it be?
 
jas84173 said:
I can’t remember. Sorry I have other things to do than stalk people’s posts from four months ago. I wish I had the time you do.
Click to expand...
:rotfl: Don’t flatter yourself.

I Googled the question you asked, in order to see what others had said about the issue, and lo and behold, the thread from April showed up…!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top