Why does the Catholic Bible,Douay, have more books in it than the Protestant Bible,King James Version?
- Anonymous1 decade agoFavorite Answer
I have to say, I read some claims that, IMHO, are quite, er, "overenthusiastic" in support of their favorite doctrine - on both sides of the issue.
1st, here's a table of contents from the original (1611) King James Version (KJV)
As one answer correctly stated, and as you can see here, all the scriptures included in the Rheims-Douay Version are also included in the KJV *translation*. Many (not all) later *editions* of the KJV omit these scriptures. The RDV does *not* have a separate section titled "apocrypha", but rather includes these scriptures within the Old Testament. Additionally, the RDV uses Vulgate book titles, so you have 1-4 Kings instead of 1-2 Samuel and 1-2 Kings (which hardly makes sense, as Samuel does not appear in 2 Samuel). Also, RDV has 1 & 2 Esdras rather than Ezra & Nehemiah, so 3 & 4 Esdras in the RDV correspond to 1 & 2 Esdras in the KJV.
This should clear things up
especially if you refer to the KJV table of contents from the earlier link so you can see how the KJV separates the scriptures of the Apocrypha.
So, now that we have established that the KJV and the RDV *translations* contain the same scriptures, why do modern KJV *usually* omit these additional scriptures known as the Apocrypha? And why are they called Apocrypha anyway? And do all Protestants really reject them?
According to the HarperCollins Bible Dictionary, Martin Luther was the first to question the inclusion of these scriptures in the bible. He considered them uninspired, but still valuable, and he was the first to separate them into a section called "Apocrypha". However, he never omitted them from his bible. The first to do this in *any* language were the Puritans in England, who first produced editions of the Geneva bible without the Apocrypha in the 1590s. The practice caught on in other countries and languages, and has progressed to the point that many bible versions today are produced without any attempt to include these scriptures. Most KJV editions available today are based on the Oxford Revision of 1769, which omits these scriptures.
Among others, the Anglican Communion - one of the largest of the true Protestant sects in the world - still include these books in their bibles. Other non-Catholic sects also include them, most notably the entire set of Eastern Orthodox sects. This is definitely not a Catholic - Protestant issue, but rather a "many Protestants" verses "many other sects" issue.
In any case, it is important to understand that *all* bibles included *all* of these scriptures for over 1,000 years! Even if we accept the unilateral decision of Martin Luther as valid (that these scriptures are uninspired), that still leaves over 1,000 years of inclusion in all Christian bibles.
You can read more about these extra scriptures here
Essentially, I conclude that there is no good reason to exclude them from a bible. I have yet to hear a valid argument for their omission. In fact, I have yet to hear a valid argument for their lack of inspiration - but that is not something I am prepared to go into here.
If you are a die-hard KJV fan, I recommend only these 3 editions:
KJV (Paragraph) - http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&loc...
A scholarly effort to duplicate the original KJV *translation* (as opposed to any particular printing). Spelling is modernized (not the wording) and the complete contents of the original translation is here, including the excellent marginal notes.
KJV (Oxford) - http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&loc...
Similar to the above, this edition lacks only the marginal notes and is much cheaper (and paperback). It is pretty well-put-together for a paperback.
This is a "replica" of the original 1611 printing. Each word on each page is in precisely the same position as in that original printing. It also includes the excellent marginal notes. The *spelling* in this edition is also identical to the original, and at 1st will cause readers some difficulty (but only at 1st). Once you have mastered the transposition of u and v, and of i and j, you will likely find it just as easy to read as an Oxford Revision KJV. Fortunately, this edition does not use the original Germanic lettering of the original, and instead uses the Roman lettering to which we are all accustomed. Possibly the best bible to use when discussing scripture with a KJV-only Christian, as this is about as close as you can get for under $100 to the *actual* *original* KJV. It is also quite reasonably priced.
I hope this helps.Source(s): HARPERCOLLINS BIBLE DICTIONARY. Copyright (c) 1985, 1996 by The Society of Biblical Literature. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America.
- imacatholic2Lv 71 decade ago
The New Testament canon of the Catholic Bible and the Protestant Bible are the same with 27 Books.
The difference in the Old Testaments actually goes back to the time before and during Christ’s life. At this time, there was no official Jewish canon of scripture.
The Jews in Egypt translated their choices of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek in the second century before Christ. This translation of 46 books, called the Septuagint, had wide use in the Roman world because most Jews lived far from Palestine in Greek cities. Many of these Jews spoke only Greek.
The early Christian Church was born into this world. The Church, with its bilingual Jews and more and more Greek-speaking Gentiles, used the books of the Septuagint as its Bible. Remember the early Christians were just writing the documents what would become the New Testament.
After the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, with increasing persecution from the Romans and competition from the fledgling Christian Church, the Jewish leaders came together and declared its official canon of Scripture, eliminating seven books from the Septuagint.
The books removed were Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Wisdom (of Solomon), Sirach, and Baruch. Parts of existing books were also removed including Psalm 151 (from Psalms), parts of the Book of Esther, Susanna (from Daniel as chapter 13), and Bel and the Dragon (from Daniel as chapter 14).
The Christian Church did not follow suit but kept all the books in the Septuagint. 46 • 27 = 73 Books total.
1500 years later, Protestants decided to keep the Catholic New Testament but change its Old Testament from the Catholic canon to the Jewish canon.
The books that were removed supported such things as
• Prayers for the dead (Tobit 12:12; 2 Maccabees 12:39-45)
• Purgatory (Wisdom 3:1-7)
• Intercession of saints in heaven (2 Maccabees 15:14)
• Intercession of angels (Tobit 12:12-15)
The books they dropped are sometimes called the Apocrypha.
Here is a Catholic Bible website: http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/
With love in Christ.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Originally, the Canon of Scriptures meant the qualifications required of a book before admittance into the number of recognized inspired writings; now it means the very collection of these books recognized as inspired.
Protestant versions of the Bible follow the late Palestinian version of the Bible, which also omits these books .
Tobias, Wisdom, Baruch, Ecclesiasticus, Machabees (I & II), Judith, Esther (Ch X. v. 4 to end), Daniel (Ch. III, vs. 52-93). The Protestants call them "Apocryphal" Books.
The canon of the Old Testament that Catholics use is based on the text used by Alexandrian Jews, a version known as the "Septuagint".
The deuterocanonical books were, though, debated in the early Church, and some Fathers accorded them higher status than others (hence the Catholic term for them: "deuterocanonical," or what St. Cyril of Jerusalem called "secondary rank," as opposed to the other books which are called "protocanonical").
But all the Fathers believed as did St. Athanasius, who, in one of his many Easter letters, names the 22 Books all Christians accept and then describes the deuterocanonicals as "appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness."
Church Councils listed and affirmed the present Catholic canon, which was only formally closed at the Council of Trent in the 16th century.
In the 16th c., Luther, to his own heretical theological vision , removed those books from the canon that lent support to orthodox doctrine, relegating them to an appendix.
Removed in this way were books that supported such things as prayers for the dead (Tobit 12:12; 2 Maccabees 12:39-45), Purgatory (Wisdom 3:1-7), intercession of dead saints (2 Maccabees 15:14), and intercession of angels as intermediaries (Tobit 12:12-15).
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Which books of the Old Testament did the Apostles accept as Scripture? Did they accept the 46 books as in the Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible or the 39 books as in the King James version? The Septuagint was accepted among the Hellenistic sect of Judaism (of which St. Paul was a member) and this canon did indeed include the same Old Testament books as the present-day Catholic Bible. In addition, the entire New Testament was written in Greek (Hellenist) with the exception of the Gospel of St. Matthew, which was written in Aramaic (the language spoken by Christ). Over 85% of the quotes from the Old Testament that are used in the New Testament are from the Septuagint. The Palestinian Old Testament canon was not compiled until between 70-90 A.D. and then, it was done so by the non-Christian Jews in violent reaction to early Judeo-Christianity. The Palestinian canon was the one chosen by Martin Luther based on the acceptance of it by the 16th century German-Jewish community of Luther's time. This canon excludes the seven books that were accepted by the Apostles as Scripture. Why was the canon of the Protestant Old Testament decided by Jews and not Christians? In addition, why did Luther attempt to eliminate the Book of St. James and the Book of Revelation? Is it because the first contradicted his dogma of "faith alone" as opposed to grace, faith and works "combined?" And the second book proving the Catholic Church's stance on nothing "impure" entering into Heaven therefore "necessitating" purgation ?Source(s): http://ie.youtube.com:80/watch?v=7gqDfrTq-Ck
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Veritatum17Lv 61 decade ago
This would be so much easier if the Apostles had simply written down their list of books considered inspired, and those that were not. Instead, we have to turn to history for the answer.
Catholic Bibles are generally based upon the Septuagint (1st-3rd century Koine Greek translation of Hebrew Scriptures) as well as upon the Vulgate (5th century Latin translation of Hebrew Scriptures). Both of these include the books (Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees) and fragments (parts of Daniel and Esther) that Protestants reject but Catholics embrace. These both also included three books (1 and 2 Esdras, the Prayer of Manassah) that were later rejected as apocryphal. They were included in an appendix to the 1592 Clementine Vulgate, and are most recently included in a separate section of the TEV, though these three are not found in NRSV or NASB editions used for Catholic liturgy.
St. Athanasius (4th century) was the first to say that there were 39 books in the OT - but he rejected Esther and included Baruch. He also noted that Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Esther, Judith and Tobit should be read and teached from, even though they are not inspired.
The first time that the bishops of the church came together and agreed on the compilation of Scripture was in 382 a.d. at the Council of Rome. What was produced was the Damasine List, and it included 46 books in the OT.
The first compilation of Scripture in a language other than the original Greek/Aramaic was the Vulgate (5th century), and it likewise had 46 books in the OT.
The Gutenberg Bible (1455) was a version of Jerome's 5th century Vulgate and kept the same number of books.
The first complete English Bible to change the number of books was Wycliffe's (1380s), which included 3 Esdras and Paul's Epistle to the Laodiceans. This last epistle was rejected as early as the late 2nd century.
Matthew's Bible (1537) included Prayer of Manassas.
Among early Christians, there was not universal agreement on whether even the protocanonical "canon" of 39 books was accepted. Josephus (1st century to early 2nd century Jewish historian) omitted Esther. Theodore of Mopsuestia (4th century bishop) rejected Song of Songs, Job, Ecclesiastes and 2 Ezra.
Melito of Sardis, in a late 2nd-century letter, rejected the Book of Esther but included the books of Wisdom and Esdras.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
The original canonized Christian bible contains all of the books accepted by Christianity. Some of those books were removed by Protestants over the last two hundred years or so.
And yes, I mean the past two hundred years.
- 1 decade ago
King James is not just for protestants.
It's for all Christians
And A Catholic Bible has more books because Protestants removed 7 books from the bible when they split from the Catholic church
- cristoiglesiaLv 71 decade ago
In first century Jerusalem there were at least four OT Canons in use by different Jewish Groups. There was the Canon of the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Ethiopian Jews and the Diaspora/Essene Jews. Jesus and the disciples used the Septuagint which was the Canon of the Diaspora/Essenes. We know this because it is quoted in the New Testament. This Canon continued to be the Canon of Christians until after the Reformation and, in fact until about 200 years ago when the Protestants adopted a condensed version of the Canon eliminating the Deuterocanonicals from their Bibles. Even the AKJ originally contained the complete Christian Canon. It has been said by critics of Christ’s Church that the Deuterocanonicals were never believed to be inspired and just the opposite is true. The decision by Christians as to which books are inspired and useful for teaching was decided at the African Synods in the late fourth and early fifth century. There was never a question about their inspiration.
The OT Canon chosen by the Protestants is actually a Jewish Canon not chosen by the Jews until after the establishment of Christianity as a result of the spread of Christianity to slow the growth of the new group in Jerusalem after the fall of the Temple in 70AD. Until then as I said previously there were many Canons in use. The adoption of the Canon missing the Deuterocanonicals united the Jews against the Christians was decided in the Jewish Council of Jamnia because the Deuterocanonicals referred too strongly to the Messiah fulfilled in Christ.
Some Protestants will claim that only the Jews have the authority to choose Canon but the Church deferred that decision to Christ and the disciples and it is clear through biblical research, that the Septuagint is the Bible used by the first century Church and quoted in the NT Scriptures. The fact that Protestants choose to adopt the Canon that was approved by the same Jews that accused our Lord that resulted in His crucifixion suggests the source of this confusion as from the father of lies who led the Pharisees to accuse Christ and petition for His punishment. It is another way that Satan divides the body of Christ and separates the faithful denying Christ’s prayer that we all be one in Christ through His Church. The Christian Church has always used the Septuagint as Canon and never the truncated version of modernist Protestants.
Some Protestants erroneously believe that Catholics added to the Bible with the Deuterocanonicals but this shows an ignorance of their own history and the history of Christianity as witnessed by Christ’s Church. The facts are that the Protestants removed the Deuterocanonicals and even considered strongly to remove some of the NT books currently in use by Protestants and Catholics. Fr. Martin Luther was in favor of removing the book of James because it conflicted with His heretical man made doctrines of the “Solas” , Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide and Sola Gratia. The heretic Ulrich Zwingli wanted to remove the Gospel of John because of its teaching of the commandment to Eat Christ’s Body and drink His Blood which contradicted his view of a real absence of Christ instead of a real presence in the Eucharist. Even Fr. Martin Luther could not endorse such a departure from Scriptures and deny that Christ is truly and really present in the Eucharist in Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.
- ~~Birdy~~Lv 71 decade ago
The 1611 Authorized Version has the same # as the Douay, I think
- 1 decade ago
Because its up to whoever is compiling the scripts and making the bible to pick which ones are suitable for his religion, and the Douay cats wanted a couple more then the Protestants