Extra books?

[jillpole]

Hello, um.. I am sorry I am not catholic and have aways wondered why the catholic Bible has some extra books in it. Can anyone explain it would be much aprreciated

 

[Aymn27]

Actually, the catholic bible, or "the one's that contain the extra books", was the original bible of the church, adopted in 325 and ratified not long after...the reason they no longer appear in the Protestant Bibles is b/c Luther - when translating the Bible into the venacular - went with the Hebrew Scriptures that were approved by a Jewish council, sometime around the first century AD (I don't remember the date or the name, but I know it was after the destruction of the temple around 72 AD). The Jews rejected all books that weren't written in Hebrew, and those "extra" books were written in Greek b/c of the date of their original writing (Greek had become a common language of the diaspora Jews) - so they weren't included in the official Hebrew Scriptures and thus were left out by Luther (who also by the way would have liked to leave out the epistle to James). Many hold that he left them out because they made reference to praying for the dead and other practices that were being abused in the Roman Church of his time.

However, I think if you'll do a little research on the topic you will note that Jesus actually referred to some of these books when he spoke and that some fragments of the books have been found in Hebrew. But, in any case, I don't think that they offer that much doctrinely or theologically as far as the differences b/ween Catholics and Protestants go...and contrary to popular belief, the RCC and others who have them did not "add" them - Luther took them out and for him it was probably justifiable..

At least that is what I've read/heard - others are more than welcome to add or correct any errors...

 

[RobNJ]

I thought it was that some Bibles are missing some books?

 

[Father Rick]

To add to what Aymn already said...

Luther's main arguement that these books should be left out is because (at Luther's time) there were no known copies of these books in the original Hebrew. About 70 years AD the Jewish (not Christian) council decided these books should not be accepted because the only known copies were in Greek and therefore they must be forgeries. Luther decided that he would side with the Jewish Council instead of the Church on this point. With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scroll, however, we now have copies of these books in Hebrew from 300 years before Christ-- so that whole debate is now moot, but Protestants can't admit they have been wrong for 200 years so they stick around. Luther also tried to throw out other books of the Bible too, including James and Esther, just because he didn't like what they taught.

FYI, the King James Version contained these books in it's first 2 editions-- since even with Luther raising a fuss, most of the Church refused to throw them out.

As to the New Testament quoting these books, I will post that on a separate post due to size.

 

[Father Rick]

Note: I originally copy/pasted the wrong thing for this post, so if you read it before this should make a lot more sense-- sorry guys!

And here are some of the quotations from the Deuterocanon in the New Testament​

• Matt. 2:16 - Herod's decree of slaying children was prophesied in Wis. 11:7 - slaying the holy s.
  
  Matt. 6:19-20 - Jesus' statement about laying up for yourselves treasure in heaven follows Sirach 29:11 - lay up your treasure.
  
  Matt.. 7:12 - Jesus' golden rule "do unto others" is the converse of Tobit 4:15 - what you hate, do not do to others.
  
  Matt. 7:16,20 - Jesus' statement "you will know them by their fruits" follows Sirach 27:6 - the fruit discloses the cultivation.
  
  Matt. 9:36 - the people were "like sheep without a shepherd" is same as Judith 11:19 - sheep without a shepherd.
  
  Matt. 11:25 - Jesus' description "Lord of heaven and earth" is the same as Tobit 7:18 - Lord of heaven and earth.
  
  Matt. 12:42 - Jesus refers to the wisdom of Solomon which was recorded and made part of the deuterocanonical books.
  
  Matt. 16:18 - Jesus' reference to the "power of death" and "gates of Hades" references Wisdom 16:13.
  
  Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 - Gospel writers refer to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 regarding the seven brothers.
  
  Matt. 24:15 - the "desolating sacrilege" Jesus refers to is also taken from 1 Macc. 1:54 and 2 Macc. 8:17.
  
  Matt. 24:16 - let those "flee to the mountains" is taken from 1 Macc. 2:28.
  
  Matt. 27:43 - if He is God's Son, let God deliver him from His adversaries follows Wisdom 2:18.
  
  Mark 4:5,16-17 - Jesus' description of seeds falling on rocky ground and having no root follows Sirach 40:15.
  
  Mark 9:48 - description of hell where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched references Judith 16:17.
  
  Luke 1:42 - Elizabeth's declaration of Mary's blessedness above all women follows Uzziah's declaration in Judith 13:18.
  
  Luke 1:52 - Mary's magnificat addressing the mighty falling from their thrones and replaced by lowly follows Sirach 10:14.
  
  Luke 2:29 - Simeon's declaration that he is ready to die after seeing the Child Jesus follows Tobit 11:9.
  
  Luke 13:29 - the Lord's description of men coming from east and west to rejoice in God follows Baruch 4:37.
  
  Luke 21:24 - Jesus' usage of "fall by the edge of the sword" follows Sirach 28:18.
  
  Luke 24:4 and Acts 1:10 - Luke's description of the two men in dazzling apparel reminds us of 2 Macc. 3:26.
  
  John 1:3 - all things were made through Him, the Word, follows Wisdom 9:1.
  
  John 3:13 - who has ascended into heaven but He who descended from heaven references Baruch 3:29.
  
  John 4:48; Acts 5:12; 15:12; 2 Cor. 12:12 - Jesus', Luke's and Paul's usage of "signs and wonders" follows Wisdom 8:8.
  
  John 5:18 - Jesus claiming that God is His Father follows Wisdom 2:16.
  
  John 6:35-59 - Jesus' Eucharistic discourse is foreshadowed in Sirach 24:21.
  
  John 10:22 - the identification of the feast of the dedication is taken from 1 Macc. 4:59.
  
  John 15:6 - branches that don't bear fruit and are cut down follows Wis. 4:5 where branches are broken off.
  
  Acts 1:15 - Luke's reference to the 120 may be a reference to 1 Macc. 3:55 - leaders of tens / restoration of the twelve.
  
  Acts 10:34; Rom. 2:11; Gal. 2:6 - Peter's and Paul's statement that God shows no partiality references Sirach 35:12.
  
  Acts 17:29 - description of false gods as like gold and silver made by men follows Wisdom 13:10.
  
  Rom 1:18-25 - Paul's teaching on the knowledge of the Creator and the ignorance and sin of idolatry follows Wis. 13:1-10.
  
  Rom. 1:20 - specifically, God's existence being evident in nature follows Wis. 13:1.
  
  Rom. 1:23 - the sin of worshipping mortal man, birds, animals and reptiles follows Wis. 11:15; 12:24-27; 13:10; 14:8.
  
  Rom. 1:24-27 - this idolatry results in all kinds of ual perversion which follows Wis. 14:12,24-27.
  
  Rom. 4:17 - Abraham is a father of many nations follows Sirach 44:19.
  
  Rom. 5:12 - description of death and sin entering into the world is similar to Wisdom 2:24.
  
  Rom. 9:21 - usage of the potter and the clay, making two kinds of vessels follows Wisdom 15:7.
  
  1 Cor. 2:16 - Paul's question, "who has known the mind of the Lord?" references Wisdom 9:13.
  
  1 Cor. 6:12-13; 10:23-26 - warning that, while all things are good, beware of gluttony, follows Sirach 36:18 and 37:28-30.
  
  1 Cor. 8:5-6 - Paul acknowledging many "gods" but one Lord follows Wis. 13:3.
  
  1 Cor. 10:1 - Paul's description of our fathers being under the cloud passing through the sea refers to Wisdom 19:7.
  
  1 Cor. 10:20 - what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God refers to Baruch 4:7.
  
  1 Cor. 15:29 - if no expectation of resurrection, it would be foolish to be baptized on their behalf follows 2 Macc. 12:43-45.
  
  Eph. 1:17 - Paul's prayer for a "spirit of wisdom" follows the prayer for the spirit of wisdom in Wisdom 7:7.
  
  Eph. 6:14 - Paul describing the breastplate of righteousness is the same as Wis. 5:18. See also Isaiah 59:17 and 1Thess. 5:8.
  
  Eph. 6:13-17 - in fact, the whole discussion of armor, helmet, breastplate, sword, shield follows Wis. 5:17-20.
  
  1 Tim. 6:15 - Paul's description of God as Sovereign and King of kings is from 2 Macc. 12:15; 13:4.
  
  2 Tim. 4:8 - Paul's description of a crown of righteousness is similar to Wisdom 5:16.
  
  Heb. 4:12 - Paul's description of God's word as a sword is similar to Wisdom 18:15.
  
  Heb. 11:5 - Enoch being taken up is also referenced in Wis 4:10 and Sir 44:16. See also 2 Kings 2:1-13 & Sir 48:9 regarding Elijah.
  
  Heb 11:35 - Paul teaches about the martyrdom of the mother and her sons described in 2 Macc. 6:18, 7:1-42.
  
  Heb. 12:12 - the description "drooping hands" and "weak knees" comes from Sirach 25:23.
  
  James 1:19 - let every man be quick to hear and slow to respond follows Sirach 5:11.
  
  James 2:23 - it was reckoned to him as righteousness follows 1 Macc. 2:52 - it was reckoned to him as righteousness.
  
  James 3:13 - James' instruction to perform works in meekness follows Sirach 3:17.
  
  James 5:3 - describing silver which rusts and laying up treasure follows Sirach 29:10-11.
  
  James 5:6 - condemning and killing the "righteous man" follows Wisdom 2:10-20.
  
  1 Peter 1:6-7 - Peter teaches about testing faith by purgatorial fire as described in Wisdom 3:5-6 and Sirach 2:5.
  
  1 Peter 1:17 - God judging each one according to his deeds refers to Sirach 16:12 - God judges man according to his deeds.
  
  2 Peter 2:7 - God's rescue of a righteous man (Lot) is also described in Wisdom 10:6.
  
  Rev. 1:18; Matt. 16:18 - power of life over death and gates of Hades follows Wis. 16:13.
  
  Rev. 2:12 - reference to the two-edged sword is similar to the description of God's Word in Wisdom 18:16.
  
  Rev. 5:7 - God is described as seated on His throne, and this is the same description used in Sirach 1:8.
  
  Rev. 8:3-4 - prayers of the saints presented to God by the hand of an angel follows Tobit 12:12,15.
  
  Rev. 8:7 - raining of hail and fire to the earth follows Wisdom 16:22 and Sirach 39:29.
  
  Rev. 9:3 - raining of locusts on the earth follows Wisdom 16:9.
  
  Rev. 17:14 - description of God as King of kings follows 2 Macc. 13:4.
  
  Rev. 19:1 - the cry "Hallelujah" at the coming of the new Jerusalem follows Tobit 13:18.
  
  Rev. 19:11 - the description of the Lord on a white horse in the heavens follows 2 Macc. 3:25; 11:8.
  
  Rev. 19:16 - description of our Lord as King of kings is taken from 2 Macc. 13:4.
  
  Rev. 21:19 - the description of the new Jerusalem with precious stones is prophesied in Tobit 13:17.
  
  Exodus 23:7 - do not slay the and righteous - Dan. 13:53 - do not put to death an and righteous person.
• 2 Tim. 3:16 - the inspired Scripture that Paul was referring to included the deuterocanonical texts that the Protestants removed. The books Baruch, Tobit, Maccabees, Judith, Sirach, Wisdom were all included in the Septuagint that Jesus and the apostles used.

 

[Colabomb]

These books have been accepted since the earliest days of the Christian Church. They are canonical and fully 100% Scriptural.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

I take it then that the Anglicans and Old Catholics accept 73, not 66, Books of Scripture?

You learn something new every day...

Rob

 

[jillpole]

Wow that's amazing. I'm protestant and always wondered that. now I know..Thanks. And sorry about not just calling it the Catholic Bible that was dumb on my part. It's really interesting. thanks!

 

[pmcleanj]

I take it then that the Anglicans and Old Catholics accept 73, not 66, Books of Scripture?

You learn something new every day...

Rob

Not quite.

Anglicans accept 80, not 73 Books of Scripture.

The additional chapters of Esther are listed separately from the rest of Esther.
The Song of the Three; Daniel and Suzannah; and Daniel, Bel and the Snake are three separate books. Third and Fourth Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh are included in the canon.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

Not quite.

Anglicans accept 80, not 73 Books of Scripture.

The additional chapters of Esther are listed separately from the rest of Esther.
The Song of the Three; Daniel and Suzannah; and Daniel, Bel and the Snake are three separate books. Third and Fourth Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh are included in the canon.

Oh, interesting. I don't think the Catholic Bible includes Manassh or 3rd/4th Esdras, but I may be wrong...has it always been included in the canon, do you know?

There was me thinking the Anglicans accepted the KJV minus apocrypha

Rob

 

[Timothy]

We accept the KJV, yes. The original 1611 KJV with Deuterocanon. So long as it's interpreted correctly--i.e. in 1600's english, rather than trying to intepret it in modern english.

Timothy

 

[Fish and Bread]

There was me thinking the Anglicans accepted the KJV minus apocrypha

We invented the King James Version! A lot of folks forget that it's called the King James Version because it was compiled under the direction of King James of England, and it's got that little notation about being the authorized version because it was officially authorized for use in the Church of England. Of course, as has been noted here, the original version included the Aprocrypha, and we have since moved on to primarily using other more modern translations.

The translation typically read nowadays in the Episcopal Church of the United States is the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV). If anyone is looking for another bible, the NRSV is an excellent choice. It was the version I was using even before I became an Episcopalian, the best combination of accuracy and readability on the market, in my view. Generally, because it isn't widely available, it might be a tad more expensive than your average KJV or NIV bible, but it's well worth the $20-$25 and any extra effort one needs to find it.

John

 

[PaladinValer]

And there are some Anglicans, like me, who accept the Prayer of Mannaseh, 1 and 2 Esdras, and Psalm 151.

 

[Wigglesworth]

Some take the position, like the one in the 39 Articles in the back of the 1979 Book of Common Prayer, that the books of the Apocrypha/Deuterocanon are worth reading but not for doctrinal support. That position was taken by Martin Luther. It may also have been the position of Jerome, the translator of the Latin Vulgate, but please don't quote me on that.

Some of the material in the Apocrypha is fiction, but Scriptural fiction nonetheless.

 

[discipline]

I highly recommend the old RSV with apocrypha. I got my copy for Christmas last year, and I am completely in love with it. I have never had such fun reading the Old Testament. It was such a welcome change from the shoddy New American Bible, which it is required to use in American Catholic liturgy. Funny thing is that when the new Catechism came out, the Bible they used as their primary text was the RSV, and not the NAB.

The NRSV is good, but doesn't seem to have the majesty of the King James. I think that the RSV maintains at least a little of that poetry while being very accurate in it's translation. The only time I use a different Bible is when I am talking to the "King James-only" crowd.

Tim.

 

[Mysterium_Fidei]

Don't burn me, please...

I've be reading the New Living Translation
(Dun dun dun...)

In all seriousness, I've never gotten through the Scriptures with such ease. I've finished the Torah and am in Joshua now. I'm taking a break to read the New Testament. I would like to note though, that I love the KJV much more for it's poetic language and feeling.

 

[PaladinValer]

**Burns anglicancrusader on the stake**

Heretic!

 

[Colabomb]

Oh, interesting. I don't think the Catholic Bible includes Manassh or 3rd/4th Esdras, but I may be wrong...has it always been included in the canon, do you know?

There was me thinking the Anglicans accepted the KJV minus apocrypha

Rob

Anglicans vary on the canon. Some are strict 66er's, some (like me) stick with the 73 RC books because we know they are safe, and others branch out even further into the orthodox Books.

Like I said, I accept all the Roman Catholic Books, and believe it is possible that others are inspired as well. Since the tradition for the orthodox books is weaker than the 73 RC books, I am more careful.

 

[Aymn27]

I highly recommend the old RSV with apocrypha. I got my copy for Christmas last year, and I am completely in love with it. I have never had such fun reading the Old Testament. It was such a welcome change from the shoddy New American Bible, which it is required to use in American Catholic liturgy. Funny thing is that when the new Catechism came out, the Bible they used as their primary text was the RSV, and not the NAB.

The NRSV is good, but doesn't seem to have the majesty of the King James. I think that the RSV maintains at least a little of that poetry while being very accurate in it's translation. The only time I use a different Bible is when I am talking to the "King James-only" crowd.

Tim.

I have a 60's version of the RSV, minus apocrypha, which I absolutely LOVE!! I hate the NAB...it is not very good at all, so I'm not surprised about the CCC. Where can I get one like yours? Does yours have an ISBN# so I can start searching for one?? Please please help...LOL...

 

[discipline]

RSV with Apocrypha 50th Anniversary Edition

ISBN: 0195288114

Didn't have enough posts to add the link to the book in Amazon.

Tim.