Skip to comments.
Catholic and Protestant Bibles
Evangelization Station ^
| Victor R. Claveau, MJ
Posted on 12/31/2010 3:16:25 AM PST by GonzoII
Catholic and Protestant Bibles
The Protestant Old Testament omits seven entire books and parts of two other books. To explain how this came about, it is necessary that we go back to the ancient Jewish Scriptures. The Hebrew Bible contained only the Old Testament and from its Old Testament it excluded seven entire books—namely, Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, I and II Maccabees—and parts of Esther(1) and Daniel(2). These books, which are missing in the Jewish Bible, came into the Catholic Church with the Septuagint, a pre-Christian Greek translation of the Old Testament. In the Septuagint they are intermingled and given equal rank with other books as in the Catholic Bible. Since the Hebrew collection of the sacred books was older than the Septuagint, the books of the Hebrew Bible are known as the “protocanonical” (of the first canon, collection, catalog). The additional books and sections found in the Septuagint and in Catholic Bibles are called “deuterocanonical” (of the second canon or collection).
Jewish hostility to the deutero-canonical books is probably attributable to the conservative spirit of the times. During the last centuries which preceded the coming of Christ, the Jews of Palestine were becoming extremely reactionary under the stress of unfavorable political conditions. Since the deuterocanonical books were of comparatively recent origin and since some of them were written in Greek—the language of paganism—they naturally fell under the displeasure of the Jews. The fact, too, that the early Christians used the Septuagint in their controversies with the Jews only served to confirm the latter in their opposition to this version of the Old Testament.
Jewish hostility to the deutero-canonical books is probably attributable to the conservative spirit of the times. During the last centuries which preceded the coming of Christ, the Jews of Palestine were becoming extremely reactionary under the stress of unfavorable political conditions. Since the deuterocanonical books were of comparatively recent origin and since some of them were written in Greek—the language of paganism—they naturally fell under the displeasure of the Jews. The fact, too, that the early Christians used the Septuagint in their controversies with the Jews only served to confirm the latter in their opposition to this version of the Old Testament.
The attitude of the Catholic Church toward the deuterocanonical books is determined by a constant and well-established tradition. How well attested this translation is, and how well founded it the position of the Catholic Church, is made readily apparent by the following important facts: In the first place, the Apostles and New Testament writers quoted principally from the Septuagint. On fact, of the three hundred and fifty Old Testament quotations found in the New Testament, about three hundred are taken from the Septuagint..Some of the New Testament writers made use of the deuterocanonicals books themselves, particularly the Book of Wisdom, which seems to have been St. Paul’s favorite volume. The Epistle of James, for example, shows familiarity with the book of Sirach. If the Apostles and New Testament writers used some of the deuterocanonical books, did they not thereby endorse the entire and longer Septuagint collection?
Secondly, the deuterocanonical books were accepted in the Church from the beginning. The Epistle of Pope Clement, written before the end of the first century, makes use of Sirach and Wisdom, gives an analysis of the Book of Judith, and quotes from the deuterocanonical parts of Esther. The same is true of other early Christian writers. The oldest extant Christian Bibles contain the deuterocanonical books intermingled with the protocanonical. The oldest Christian list of Biblical books contain the deuterocanonical books; in 382 Pope Damasus in a Roman Council promulgated a formal list of Old and New Testament books and the list contains the same books as we have in our Catholic Bibles. Finally, Christian art of the first four centuries, especially that found in the catacombs and cemeteries, furnish among others the following illustrations from the deuterocanonical books: Tobias with the fish, Susanna (Dan. 13), Daniel and the dragon (Dan. 14), the angel with the three children in the fiery furnace (Dan. 3:49), Habakkuk and Daniel in the lion’s den (Dan. 14:35).
Suffice to say, in conclusion, that since they follow the synagogue in their rejection of the deuterocanonical books, the Protestants should in all logic follow it in its rejection of the New Testament and of Christ Himself.
Apocryphal Books
The term “apocryphal” is derived from the Greek “apokryphos” and denotes something hidden or secret. The sacred books of the ancient pagans, which described the mysteries of religion, were called Apocrypha, because they were kept hidden in the temples, and shown only to the initiated. Again, magicians and wonder-workers forged books reputed to contain hidden heavenly secrets, and designated by the title apocrypha.
Later on, however, the term came to denote a well-defined class of work with Scriptural or quasi-Scriptural pretensions, but lacking genuineness and canonicity, and composed during the last two centuries before Christ or during the early centuries of the Christian era. These books claimed divine authority, and were occasionally accepted by some as inspired, but were excluded from the Bible of the universal Church. There number is exceedingly great. Most of them are either anonymous or pseudonymous. Some are written for edification; others for the sake of propagating false and heretical doctrines; others, finally, to satisfy a foolish curiosity concerning prominent Biblical persons. These apocryphal books are not entirely without value. To the student of the Scriptures they at time furnish interesting information concerning the customs, habits of life, religious views, and opinions of their time. They show, in particular, the higher and nobler character of the inspired books of the Bible.
The apocryphal books are divided into two classes on the basis of their subject matter and reputed authors:
1. The Old Testament apocrypha were written chiefly by Jews, though some contain interpolations by Christians. These books propose fictitious narratives about Biblical persons, or add pious exhortations and precepts to the Mosaic Law, or in the style of prophecy an the name of some patriarch or prophet foretell the near advent of the Messianic reign. The most famous apocrypha of the Old Testament are the third and fourth books of Esdras and the prayer of Manasses, books often given as an appendix in the Latin Vulgate. Other apocryphal books of the Old Testament are: Book of Henoch, Assumption of Moses, Apocalypse of Abraham, Psalms of Solomon, Sibylline Oracles, Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Ascension of Isaias.
2. The New Testament apocrypha are usually imitation of the genuine sacred books of the Bible. They treat at length matters either briefly mentioned in the Biblical books or omitted entirely. Their favorite themes are the infancy of our Lord or His life on earth after His resurrection. They contain many silly and foolish legends and are lacking in the simplicity and sublimity of the Biblical books. What they add to the four Gospels is made up on the whole either of crude amplifications or of legends. The portrait of our Lord in particular is a caricature of the true image which we find in the canonical Gospels. The Divine Child is frequently represented as haughty, capricious, and performing miracles for purely selfish reasons. Much about Him is artificial and theatrical. Some fifty Gospels, twenty-two Acts, and many Epistles and Apocalypses of diverse Apostles are known to have existed, though many have perished. Famous among these writings is the Letter of King Abgar to our Lord. Other New Testament apocrypha are: Gospels according to the Hebrew and according to the Egyptians; Gospels of Peter and of Thomas; the Proto-Evangelium of James; Acts of Peter and Paul; Apocalypses of Peter, of Paul, of Bartholomew; Epistle of Paul and Seneca.
(1) Esther 10:14 to 16:14).
(2) Daniel 3:24-90; 13, 14).
The Evangelization Station
P.O. Box 267
Angels Camp, California 95222, USA
Telephone: 209-728-5598
E-mail: evangelization@earthlink.net www.evangelizationstation.com
Pamphlet 641
TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; History; Theology
KEYWORDS: bible; freformed; scripture
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-72 next last
To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
Thank you very much. I especially am persuaded by the jot and tittle from Matthew. What a powerful statement Our Lord makes about the words of the Hebrew prophets.
41
posted on
12/31/2010 7:50:31 AM PST
by
wbarmy
(I chose to be a sheepdog once I saw what happens to the sheep.)
To: GonzoII
Excellent breakdown of the books. This is the way it is listed in my Bible too.
42
posted on
12/31/2010 7:55:36 AM PST
by
Salvation
("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
To: GonzoII
**The Protestants of the sixteenth century objected to the deuterocanonical books because of their dogmatic content. **
Says it all right there.
Even Protestant know that the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Do they commit blasphemy against the Holy Spirit by not accepting the entire Bible? I wonder??????
43
posted on
12/31/2010 7:58:30 AM PST
by
Salvation
("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
To: John Leland 1789
44
posted on
12/31/2010 8:02:06 AM PST
by
Salvation
("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
To: GonzoII
Excellent. Using typology (linking the Old Testament with the New Testament) is so powerful.
45
posted on
12/31/2010 8:05:13 AM PST
by
Salvation
("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
To: Salvation
Not real impressed that the Protestant Catholic Luther would think he got his Bible from Rome.
To: GonzoII
THE CANON
Catholicism claims that the church established the canon of Scripture in the fourth century and that therefore the church is the ultimate authority, not Scripture. Roman Catholic apologists often ask, 'If you accept the limits of the Canon that were authoritatively established by the Roman Catholic Church, why do you reject the ultimate authority of that Church?' The simple reason is that the premise upon which that logic rests is fallacious because the specific claims the Church of Rome makes for itself regarding the canon are contradicted by the facts of history. The Roman Catholic Church did not authoritatively establish the limits of the canon for the church. The New Testament books were already recognized in the church prior to the Western councils of Hippo and Carthage in North Africa in the fourth century. These were provincial councils that had no authority for the church universally, and their decrees on the Apocrypha were never accepted in the church as a whole. The church adopted the views of many of the Eastern Fathers such as Origen and Athanasius and Western Fathers such as Jerome. It expressed the view that these writings were useful for reading in the churches for the purpose of edification, but they were not to be counted as part of the canon of inspired Scripture since they were not part of the Hebrew canon. Consequently, they were not to be used for the establishment of doctrine. So the inclusion of additional books in the canon of Scripture by the Roman Catholic Church troubled me. Which visible community had this right? In commenting on the apocryphal books, Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus, Jerome states:
As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it also read these two volumes for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church.... I say this to show how hard it is to master the book of Daniel, which in Hebrew contains neither the history of Susanna, nor the hymn of the three youths, nor the fables of Bel and the Dragon.[ St. Jerome, Prefaces to Jerome's Works, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs, Daniel, Series Two, vol. VI, of Schaff and Wace, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 492-93.]
That the Jewish canon did not include the Apocrypha and that the Protestant Reformers followed the practice of the Jews is affirmed by the New Catholic Encyclopedia: 'For the Old Testament, however, Protestants follow the Jewish canon; they have only the Old Testament books that are in the Hebrew Bible.[ New Catholic Encyclopedia (Washington, D.C.: Catholic Univ., 1967), III:29.] That the church as a whole never accepted the apocryphal books as part of the canon of Scripture after the councils of Carthage and Hippo is seen from these comments by Pope Gregory the Great (A.D. 590-604) on the book of 1 Maccabees:
With reference to which particular we are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not Canonical, yet brought out for the edification of the Church, we bring forward testimony. Thus Eleazar in the battle smote and brought down an elephant, but fell under the very beast that he killed (1 Macc. 6.46). [Gregory the Great, Morals on the Book of Job, vol. II parts III and IV, Book XIX.34, in A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, 424. The New Catholic Encyclopedia confirms that Pope Gregory did not accept a canonical status for the Apocrypha (II:390).]
This was the view that was held throughout the ensuing centuries of the history of the church. John Cosin, in his book A Scholastical History of the Canon, documents some fifty-two major ecclesiastical writers and theologians from the eighth to the sixteenth centuries who held to the view of Jerome. That this was the general view of the church up to as late as the sixteenth century is evidenced by these comments from Cardinal Cajetan, the great opponent of Luther in the Reformation, taken from his commentary on the Old Testament:
Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St. Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed among the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned canonical. For the words as well as of councils and of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorized in the canon of the bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clear through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage. [Taken from his comments on the final chapter of Esther, in Commentary on All the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament; cited in William Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture (Cambridge: University Press, 1849), 48. Cf. John Cosin, A Scholastical History of the Canon (Oxford: Parker, 1849),111:257-58, and B.F. Westcott, A General Survey of the Canon of the New Testament (New York: Macmillan, 1889), 475.]
The New Catholic Encyclopedia affirms that Jerome rejected the Apocrypha as being canonical and that the councils of Carthage and Hippo did not establish the Old Testament canon. It states explicitly that this was not authoritatively done until the Council of Trent:
St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books (the apocrypha). The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture....The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries....According to Catholic doctrine; the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent....The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent. [New Catholic Encyclopedia, II:390, III:29]
The first general council of the Western church to dogmatically decree the Apocrypha to be part of the canon and therefore to be accorded the status of Scripture was the Council of Trent in the mid-sixteenth century. This was done contrary to the universal practice of the Jews and the church up to that time. And Trent places under anathema all who reject this teaching. ['If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the Old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema' (Fourth Session, Decree Concerning the Canonical Scriptures, of The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent [Rockford: Tan, 1978], 18).] It was the Roman Catholic Church, not the Protestant, which was responsible for the introduction of novel teachings very late in the history of the church. When one examines the related issues of Scripture, tradition, and the canon, the facts reveal that it is the Protestant teaching that is closest to both Scripture and the teaching of the truly historic catholic church.
To: John Leland 1789
But don’t be impervious to the truth. Where else would Luther have gotten it from?
48
posted on
12/31/2010 8:51:36 AM PST
by
Salvation
("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
To: John Leland 1789
Come on! Luther had been a Catholic priest! Of course he had a Catholic Bible and would say that the Catholics had the gift of the Bible!
49
posted on
12/31/2010 8:52:32 AM PST
by
Salvation
("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
To: GonzoII
***The Protestant Old Testament omits seven entire books and parts of two other books.***
Yawn, this old argument again! Anyone who has read the Apocrypha (and every one should read it at least once to see why it is irrelivant) will readily see that these are just pious fictions devoid of any real spiritual guidance, an placing them with the fictional SHEPHERD OF HERMAS and THE APOCALYPSE OF PETER other tall tales is their proper place.
The original 1611 KJV had the Apocrypha as did the Geneva bibles. They have been removed in most KJV printings done in America.
If you want a copy of the KJV with Apocrypha here is a link to the best English KJV bibles in the world, CAMBRIDGE and Oxford.
http://www.bibles-direct.co.uk/products/?c=44
Note: This company has a long term contract to produce hymn books for a certain legalistic sect. Do not order their hymn books.
50
posted on
12/31/2010 9:06:55 AM PST
by
Ruy Dias de Bivar
(I visited GEN TOMMY FRANKS Military Museum in HOBART, OKLAHOMA! Well worth it!)
To: GonzoII
***The Epistle of Pope Clement, written before the end of the first century, makes use of Sirach and Wisdom, ****
Siracha and Wisdom..Not bad books, more like commentaries on PROVERBS.
I believe Clement also mentioned verses from the ILLIAD and ODYSSEY. Often such a quote is just to illustrate what he is saying, just as St Paul often quoted Pagan authors in his letters.
51
posted on
12/31/2010 9:13:35 AM PST
by
Ruy Dias de Bivar
(I visited GEN TOMMY FRANKS Military Museum in HOBART, OKLAHOMA! Well worth it!)
To: GonzoII
*** The book of Tobias teaches the efficacy of good works, ****
From the preface to TOBIT in the NAB Catholic Bible..
“The book of Tobit, named after it's principal hero, combines specifically Jewish piety and morality with ORIENTAL FOLKLORE in a fascinating story that has been enjoyed with popularity in both Jewish ad Christian circles.”.......
“The inspired author of the book uses the literary form of RELIGIOUS NOVEL (as in Jonah and Judith) for the purpose of instruction and edification......The seemingly historical data-names of kings, cities, ect.-are used merely as vivid details to create interest and charm.”
52
posted on
12/31/2010 9:27:16 AM PST
by
Ruy Dias de Bivar
(I visited GEN TOMMY FRANKS Military Museum in HOBART, OKLAHOMA! Well worth it!)
To: cizinec
“BCE”? From a Christian (I assume)?
OK, but it seems a little politically correct.
53
posted on
12/31/2010 9:30:00 AM PST
by
chesley
(Eat what you want, and die like a man.)
To: Salvation
"Come on! Luther had been a Catholic priest! Of course he had a Catholic Bible and would say that the Catholics had the gift of the Bible!" My point exactly.
To: Ruy Dias de Bivar
"NAB Catholic Bible" Not the best commentary.
55
posted on
12/31/2010 10:28:38 AM PST
by
GonzoII
("That they may be one...Father")
To: chesley
It’s a habit.
BCE - Before Common Era and Common Era vs. Before Christ and Anno Domini
The differences are irrelevant. They are all dated to the same event. Call it what you will, the event is the same.
56
posted on
12/31/2010 12:03:37 PM PST
by
cizinec
To: JDoutrider
To: cizinec
The differences are non-existent. The symbolism is enormous. Still, I’ve done it , too. Just not usually.
58
posted on
12/31/2010 12:21:29 PM PST
by
chesley
(Eat what you want, and die like a man.)
To: CynicalBear
CynicalBear:
Pope Gregory the Great never called a Council to overturn the Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) which in The Western Church, confirmed the 46 Book OT of the Catholic CHurch, which included the 7 Deuterocanicals. Your post is full of half-truths.
Pope Gregory wrote a biblical commentary that was among the standards for the Catholic Church, at least the Latin Church, for centuries. However, it is possible for a Pope, even one named Gregory the Great, to write a Biblical commentary as a theologian and biblical scholar and not write it as Bishop of Rome under infallibility.
For example, Pope Benedict recently wrote and excellent book entitled “Jesus of Nazareth” as a personal theologian which he reflected on certain Gospel Passages about Christ. In no way was the Pope saying, and he says this up front, that his work is to be seen as the only way to interpret the Gospels that he was writing on. Catholic biblical scholars have freedom to interpret passages as long as they do not contradict Dogmas or Defined Doctrines, so there are boundaries which they can’t go beyond without being subject to Correction.
In addition, it was only 1 Macabees that Pope Gregory questioned as to its strict canonicity. For the record, there were 2 criteria which were used to determine Canonicity, 1) Did the book help shape Doctrine or Dogma and 2) Was it read in the Church Liturgy.
If it met both criteria, it was a slame dunk, if it met 1 but not both, it was questioned by some theologians but ultimately it is the authority of the Church and the weight of Tradition that settles the canon.
To: GonzoII
“NAB Catholic Bible”
**Not the best commentary.***
It has a page full of NIHIL OBSTAT and IMPRIMATUR signatures along with a statement and seal from the Vatican, September 18, 1970 signed by Paulus P P vi
I use it or the DR when I come to a tough spot in the KJV.
60
posted on
12/31/2010 1:10:31 PM PST
by
Ruy Dias de Bivar
(I visited GEN TOMMY FRANKS Military Museum in HOBART, OKLAHOMA! Well worth it!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-72 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
