I have a friend, who is a Seventh Day Adventist, who wants to borrow my "Catholic Bible" to look something up. ? I told her I was pretty sure there was nothing particularly different in our Bibles, except perhaps the footnoted interpretations of words or verses. Is there a real difference in Bibles? I suspect she is looking for an opportunity to 'Catholic bash', so I have some hesitation in letting her use a Bible to do so anyway.

Martin Luther removed 7 books from the Old Testament, so there are differences. The 'protestant' bible is smaller than the Catholic one.

In additition, several translations seem to go out of their way to discredit Catholic teachings. The NIV is particularly bad at this

For example, the Greek work paradosis is translated as "Tradition" when ever it is being spoken against (Col 2:8) , but as "Teachings" when being spoken of favorably (2 Thes 3:6)

They undoubtedly do not have 7 books of the OT:

Tobit
Baruch
Sirach
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees
Judith
Wisdom

and parts of two others:

Daniel (part of ch. 3; & ch. 13-14)
Esther (parts of several chapters)

Some older translations of Catholic Bibles may also number the Psalms slightly differently. Don't be afraid to lend your friend the Bible. It is a good way to evangelize and testify to the veracity of the Faith.

By the way, be aware that the book found in the Catholic Old Testament that is today most commonly titled "Sirach" is in fact the same book as that called "Ecclesiasticus" (NOT the same thing as Ecclesiastes) in older or more Latinate (e.g., Douai) Catholic versions.

The reason for the name difference is that it calls itself "the Wisdom of Jesus, the son of Sirach". Since there already is a bookof Wisdom, that name does not work, and to call it "Jesus" certainly would sound odd for an Old Testament book. The name "Ecclesiasticus" meant "the Book that the Church likes", which is sort of vague. "Ben-Sira" would be more accurate -- but since we don't have a Hebrew original, and just a Greek, you don't find the word "Ben-Sira" in the text. Thus, the habit is growing up of shortening "son of Sirach" to Sirach -- although Sirach is not the author, but instead the Hebrew author's father, and the Greek translator's more distant ancestor..

Custos

Have no fear. There is nothing under the sun that the Church hasn't already dealt with regarding the Canon of the Bible. Just in case, I'd arm myself with a copy of 'Where We Got The Bible' by Henry Graham.

The "missing" books... how often are those referenced? I mean, my bible doesn't have those books, so how much am I missing out on by not having them?

Here are some sample translation differences that can occur:

-----

Matthew 19:9 (Catholic NAB): I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.

Matthew 19:9 (Protestant NKJV): And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.

Here the Catholic translation is influenced by the Catholic understanding that adultery (sexual immorality) does not justify divorce.

-----

Colossians 4:16 (Catholic NAB): And when this letter is read before you, have it read also in the church of the Laodiceans, and you yourselves read the one from Laodicea.

Colossians 4:16 (Protestant NASB): When this letter is read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans; and you, for your part read my letter that is coming from Laodicea.

Here the Protestant translation is influenced by the Sola Scripture idea that it is unthinkable that an epistle of Paul's would have been lost.

If your Bible does not have certain books, I guess you would not "reference" them very often at all.

Although I must admit I do not know exactly what "referencing" them means -- it is a very odd phrase. If you mean "does the Church actually READ the Bible,or does it just sit there unopened" -- Yes, we read it. All of it.

Custos

The false statement yet again, will it ever go away?

I don't know how to word it. I'm just curious as to how often those books are used as readings in Mass or as parts of a bible study lesson. As opposed to the Gospels being read and used on a very regular basis.

Bible study lesson? I suppose anyone who wants to have a Bible study lesson (whatever one is) could study anything, although never having been to anything called a "Bible study lesson" in my life I could not say.

Mind you, that does not mean I have been left ignorant about scripture. I went from 1st to 12th grade in Catholic schools, and we studied much in (and about) the Bible in Religion class. In addition, a good homily should be a "bible study lesson" - but I don't think either of these ways of learning about Scripture in a formal setting is what you mean by that very Protestant-sounding term. Which makes me think to ask -- are you Catholic, Erik? From the tone of your questions, I am assuming that you are not.

As for the readings -- and we will only consider Sundays -- Sirach provides the first reading on the first two Sundays afte Christmas in all three yearly cycles. There is a reading from Baruch at the Easter Vigil. In year A, There are readings from Sirach on the 6th and 24th Sundays in Ordinary Time, while there are readings from Wisdom on the 16th and 32nd Sundays. In Ordinary time in Year B, there are readings from Wisdom on the 13th, 25th, and 28th Sundays. In Year C, Sirach is read on the 8th, 22nd, and 30th Sundays, and Wisdom on the 19th, 23rd, and 31st. In addition, there is a reading from 2 Maccabees on the 32nd Sunday.

Is that what you meant?

Custos

Yes, that's what I meant. I don't know how else I could have worded it. And no, I'm not Catholic... yet.

It also means you didn't get your money's worth when you bought it.

Who wants a book that's got entire pages missing?

In fact the name "Jesus" is already used for an Old Testament book under the variant "Joshua"! This is especially obvious when looking at a copy of the Greek Septuagint where the book is entitled Iēsous, the exact same name/spelling as Jesus.


Edward Pothier

I'm not clear on how or why books got removed from the Catholic bible. What was the reasoning behind this?

Echoing djorourke, i would like to know why books were removed. I was always led to believe that Catholics had added books and this whole time the Bible originally existed with the books as the Catholics still use? Someone said Martin Luther removed books with the Protestant Reformation yet someone else said that is false?

Well it's proven historically ...the books were there prior to King James and his band of merry men.

As I understand it, Luther did change some wording in one book and he wanted to remove other books, like Revelation (but didn't).

King James and company are the culprits....although other's prior to them did alter Scripture in their various translations.


SV

to be completely fair (and trusting my memory...which could be a dangerous thing ), the original KJV did have the books that were eventually removed at a later date... they were just grouped together as the apocrypha ... i'll try to get defensor fidei in here...it was from him that i got the info that i am imparting now

They were in the middle between the Old and New Testement, but to say that there were not accepted as scripture is pure conjecture.

-Ted