Why isn't Matt 23:14 in the Cath Bible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter dzerhusen
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

dzerhusen

Guest
Where is Matt 23:14? Where is Acts 8:37? Why aren’t they in the Catholic
bible? Weren’t they in the original bible?
 
Would you mind quoting these verses for us so that we can know what you are referring to? Thank you. :tiphat:
 
The oldest texts/manuscripts available do not include the verse commonly refered to as ACTs 8:37

10 [37] The oldest and best manuscripts of Acts omit this verse, which is a Western text reading: "And Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may.’ And he said in reply, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.’ "
May I refer you to:
usccb.org/nab/bible/acts/acts8.htm
 
Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You devour the houses of widows and as a pretext, recite lengthy prayers. One of my protestant brothers pointed it out to me, and he was right it is not in my Catholic New American Bible?
 
Directly from the footnotes on the USCCB web site:
[14] Some manuscripts add a verse here or after Matthew 23:12 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You devour the houses of widows and, as a pretext, recite lengthy prayers. Because of this, you will receive a very severe condemnation.” Cf Mark 12:40; Luke 20:47. This “woe” is almost identical with Mark 12:40 and seems to be an interpolation derived from that text.
Click to expand...
10 [37] The oldest and best manuscripts of Acts omit this verse, which is a Western text reading: "And Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may.’ And he said in reply, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.’ "
Click to expand...
 
dzerhusen said:
Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You devour the houses of widows and as a pretext, recite lengthy prayers. One of my protestant brothers pointed it out to me, and he was right it is not in my Catholic New American Bible?
Click to expand...
Check out: usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew23.htm

that shows Mat 23:14…it also shows some good explanations on how texts are put together.

Remember, and you may share this with your Protestant brothers and sisters is that the ORIGINAL Bible IS the Catholic Bible…and many times the text is numbered differently from Bible translation to Bible translation. Keep in mind, as Catholics we are children of the WORD and not children of the Book.
 
dzerhusen said:
Where is Matt 23:14? Where is Acts 8:37? Why aren’t they in the Catholic
bible? Weren’t they in the original bible?
Click to expand...
Matthew 23:14 is in the footnotes of the Jerusalem Bible, the New American Bible, the Revised Standard Version (Catholic Edition), and the the NIV. The KJV has the verse in full in the main text. It is thought to be a later derivative of another “woe”.

Acts 8:37 is missing from all three of these translations as well as the New International Version and the King James Version. According to the footnotes in my NIV, the verse was a late addition.

It reads: 37 Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” The eunuch answered, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”

Why do you suppose the Protestant NIV translation left it out?

Don’t let your “KJV-only” friend worry you. With advances in technology, air travel and the Internet, modern biblical scholars have better access to the oldest manuscripts than ever before. You can be confident that you are reading the finest translations ever known to man.
 
ALLFORHIM said:
Hi,

They are not in my protestant bible either.
Click to expand...
AFH,
You mind letting us know what translation you read?

For those that know.
Are these 2 verses only in the KJV translation? I did check mine and it’s in there. I checked the NIV online and it’s not in that. Most Protestants I know seem to use the NIV. I don’t think I know anyone that prefers the KJV. Interesting what you can learn. 😉
 
Sabda said:
AFH,
You mind letting us know what translation you read?

For those that know.
Are these 2 verses only in the KJV translation? I did check mine and it’s in there. I checked the NIV online and it’s not in that. Most Protestants I know seem to use the NIV. I don’t think I know anyone that prefers the KJV. Interesting what you can learn. 😉
Click to expand...
Douay-Rheims:

Matthew 23:14 -
Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites: because you devour the houses of widows, praying long prayers. For this you shall receive the greater judgment.

Acts 8:37 -
And Philip said: If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest. And he answering, said: I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

drbo.org/
 
Cranch said:
Douay-Rheims:

Matthew 23:14 -
Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites: because you devour the houses of widows, praying long prayers. For this you shall receive the greater judgment.
Click to expand...
I also keep an old “Confraternity Edition” (a revision of the Challoner-Rheims) around, which includes the subject verse in brackets, with the following footnote:

“Apparently this verse did not belong to the original Gospel of St. Matthew. It is omitted by the better Greek and some Vulgate MSS.”

Similar note for the bracketed Acts 8:37.

Never spotted this before, so thanks!

Peace all.
 
Actually, it is one of the problems of modern Biblical scholarship that they have tried to drop several different verses throughout the Bible from the text.

This trend is alarming as it is an attack on the Word of God. The oldest manuscripts of Mark do not have verses 16:9-20. There are numerous other verses which are in danger of being dropped if this trend continues.

Ron
 
JJ-

Good to see you over here…taking a walk on the wild side, eh?
 
You have to be more polite over here but many people know more and there is a greater variety of people that know what they’re talking about.

Catholic Answers Forum is a great place to learn.

Nice to see you Randy.

As for the issue at hand I’m inclined to side with the Catholic Church over ANY new Protestant translation that omits a verse due to ancient sources.

If the Douay Rheims or the Nova Vulgata omits a verse I’m inclined to trust that choice.

What I really wanted to know was was there a conflict between the Nova Vulgata and the Douay Rheims. While I revere the Douay Rheims I’ve never said it was perfect.

Does anyone out there know if the verse is omitted or not in the Nova Vulgata? I guess I need to learn Latin and then I’d know.
 
Ron_Conte said:
Actually, it is one of the problems of modern Biblical scholarship that they have tried to drop several different verses throughout the Bible from the text.

This trend is alarming as it is an attack on the Word of God. The oldest manuscripts of Mark do not have verses 16:9-20. There are numerous other verses which are in danger of being dropped if this trend continues.

Ron
Click to expand...

**There is no attack on the Word of God - it can seem as though there is, if one regards **​

  • **a particular translation (e.g., the AV/KJV, Vulgate) or **
  • a particular manuscript (e.g. Codex Sinaiticus) or
  • textual tradition (e.g. that of the Byzantine text-type)
    **- as somehow the uniquely accurate/preserved form of the text. But to make a translation the basis for an opinion on the genuiness of a reading in the text, is to get things back to front entirely. **
**There are 8,000 MSS of the Vulgate, & 5,000 or so of the Greek NT, & many other witnesses to the texts of the other ancient versions of this or that part of the Bible; & none is uniquely accurate, none is perfect. Verses are dropped because they are judged not to be part of the text. Alternative readings - which may or may not involve alterations of the written text - are adopted because they are judged to fit the text. There is no attack on the Bible at all here - quite the reverse. **

**Quite apart from the fact that the text is likely to be added to as to be cut. Not because there is some plot to pervert it, but because what is added is judged to belong in the text. **

**These decisions are no made haphazardly, or on a whim - there are principles for this sort of thing. **

**The Bible is not the only book to have its text treated in this way - inspiration, true as it may be, does not preserve the written markings we call the text from any of the hazards that have befallen books of the same age. Editors of the NT do nothing that editors of other texts of the same age don’t also do. So editions of the NT no more show that there is hatred of the NT, than an edition of Philo (d. c. 50 (?) AD) shows that there is hatred of the works of Philo. Philo wrote a great deal, but his works, which are in Greek, are no more “preserved” than the NT writings. Unfortunately, people seem to forget that there we****re other ****writings than the NT in the first century AD - so they look at the NT unrealistically 😦 : as though there were some reason why it should not be subject to the same hazards as any other writing of its time. If there is - what is that reason ? **
 
Jerry-Jet said:
Does the Nova Vulgata have this verse or not?
Click to expand...

**The 1979 first edition has a bracketed verse number - thus: (14). I don’t have the second edition. 😦 **​

**It’s in the 1964 ninth edition of the Vulgate & Greek NT of A. Merk S.J. Some of the evidence he quotes suggests that the reading is older than the Vulgate - it can be found in older Latin texts. (Which does not make it authentic, just old) **

**The 1973 BFBS printing of Wordsworth & White’s Vulgate NT regates it to the margin too. The two MSS which are cited as including it - Codex Fuldensis & Cod. Hubertianus - belong to the sixth & ninth/tenth centuries respectively **

**The 1975 second printing of the Beuron Abbey manual edition of the Vulgate Bible has plenty of variant readings - for this verse as a whole (there is a variant within this variant reading :)) , it cites just two manuscripts (& the Clementine printed edition - presumably that of 1592, which the basis for the rest) **

There is also evidence for it in the Greek textual tradition.
**Any use to you ? **
 
The Nova Vulgata is as close as you’ll get to an official opinion by the Catholic Church on what MIGHT be accurate.

I say if the Nova Vulgata says it’s possible and if it references older sources thanJjerome had–and who knows that–then I’d have to say that it’s POSSIBLE.

Bottom line: who knows?
 
Jerry-Jet said:
The Nova Vulgata is as close as you’ll get to an official opinion by the Catholic Church on what MIGHT be accurate.

I say if the Nova Vulgata says it’s possible and if it references older sources thanJerome had–and who knows that–then I’d have to say that it’s POSSIBLE.

Bottom line: who knows?
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top