William
H. Sanford wrote: |
|
Hi, guys —
- Why is it the Catholic Bible is the
only Bible to contain the additional books
of the "Apocrypha", located just
before the New Testament, when not even
the original manuscripts of the Bible contain
such books?
In addition, neither Jesus nor His disciples
ever quoted from them.
God says:
1 9 As we have said before, so now I say again,
If any one
is preaching to you a gospel contrary to
that which you received, let
him be accursed.
Galatians 1:9 |
William
|
| { Why
is the Catholic Bible the only
Bible that contains these additional books, located just
before the New Testament? } |
Mike
replied:
|
Hi, William —
Thanks for the question.
You said:
- Why is it that the Catholic Bible is the
only Bible to contain the additional books
of the "Apocrypha", located just
before the New Testament, when not even
the original manuscripts of the Bible contain
such books?
First, we don't have the original
manuscripts now.
They are gone. All we have are copies
of copies of originals, thanks to
Benedictine Monks who preserved the
words of the Bible you hold in your
hand today.
Below is a paraphrased version of
what I heard from an audio cassette
tape I listened to on the subject.
At the time, the canon, or measuring
rod, was put together by the Catholic
Church in 393 A.D.
Pope St. Damasus told St. Jerome to translate all
the books of the Bible into Latin,
which was the current language at
that time.
St. Jerome studied with Jewish Rabbis
who helped him do the translation
from Hebrew to Latin. When Jerome
came to these seven books, the rabbis
said:
"We don't have Hebrew originals
for these books; they are not
inspired."
Jerome informed the Pope about this.
The Pope looked at the Oral Tradition
of the Church —
2 Thessalonians 2:15, as well as other passages.
2 15 Therefore, brothers, stand firm
and hold fast to the traditions
that you were taught, either
by an oral statement or by a letter
of ours.
2 Thessalonians 2:15 |
and said, ...
No, I respect the Rabbi's opinion,
but we have a Tradition going back
in all the Churches that these books
have been read in all the churches
and are inspired, so
he translated them into Latin!
What you call the Apocrypha, is correctly
called the Deuterocanonical books
of the Bible.
The distinction between the initial
canon, and [the additional] Deuterocanonical books, does
not indicate a difference
of authority, but only
a difference
of time at which the books
were recognized by the whole Church
as Divinely inspired.
Luther's original argument was that
we should not include
the seven extra books because, like
the Jewish scholars said, we had No Hebrew
originals for these books, so they
are not truly inspired. Luther's real
problem were that Biblical
verses in these books reaffirmed
the Catholic teaching of praying
for the dead, like 2 Maccabees 12:39ff.
This is why all Protestant Bibles
either:
- don't have these books in their
Bibles, or
- have them at the end of their
Old Testament.
These
books are:
- Tobias
- Judith
- Wisdom
- Ecclesiasticus
- Baruch
- I Maccabees, II Maccabees
- also Esther, x , 4- xvi, 24, and
- Daniel, iii, 24-90, xiii, 1-xiv, 42,
In 1947, this whole argument collapsed
like a deck of cards when a young
Bedouin boy, searching for a goat
in a cave near Khirbat Qumran, on
the Left Bank of the Dead Sea, stumbled
upon one of the
century's most significant archaeological
finds.
| HEBREW ORIGINALS FOR DEUTEROCANONICAL BOOKS! |
|
So we would say, historically and
truthfully: You
are missing books in your Bible.
You always get more bang for your buck
with a Catholic Bible : )
You said:
In addition,
neither Jesus nor His disciples ever
quoted from them (the Deuterocanonical books).
The
Septuagint is the first translation
of the Hebrew Old Testament. It
was translated into popular Greek
before the Christian era. In reading
the New Testament, you will find
many references that Jesus did quote
from the Septuagint, which
did include the Deuterocanonical
books.
I hope this answers your question.
Mike Humphrey
|
Eric replied:
|
Hi, William —
This is what the Catholic Encyclopedia says on this issue.
While revising the text of the Old Latin Version, St. Jerome became convinced of the need in the Western Church of a new translation directly from the Hebrew.
His Latin scholarship, his acquaintance with Biblical places and customs obtained by residence in Palestine, and his remarkable knowledge of Hebrew and of Jewish exegetical traditions, especially fitted him for a work of this kind. He set himself to the task 390 A.D. and in 405 A.D. completed the protocanonical books of the Old Testament from the Hebrew, and the deuterocanonical Books of Tobias and Judith from the Aramaic. To these were added his revision of the Old Latin, or Gallican, Psalter, the New Testament, revised from the Old Latin with the aid of the original Greek, and the remaining deuterocanonical books, and portions of Esther, and Daniel, just as they existed in the Itala. Thus was formed that version of the Bible which has had no less influence in the Western Church than the Septuagint has had in the Eastern, which has enriched the thought and language of Europe and has been the source of nearly all modern translations of the Scriptures.
It gradually supplanted the Old Latin Version. Adopted by several writers in the fifth century, it came into more general use in the sixth [century]. At least the Spanish churches employed it in the seventh century, and in the ninth it was found in practically the whole Roman Church. Its title "Vulgate", indicating its common use, and belonging to the Old Latin until the seventh century, was firmly established in the thirteenth. In the sixteenth the Council of Trent declared it the authentic version of the Church. |
Hope this helps,
Eric
|
|
|
