Which "Catholic" bible do you mean?  Roman,
Coptic Christian, or Orthodox Christian?  As all three aren't having to do 
with those Christians springing from the reformation movement.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "john schwery" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 7:06 PM
Subject: Re: Catholic (with deuterocanonical books) Audio Bibles (NRS, DR)


> Grant, good one.
>
> earlier, Grant E. Metcalf, wrote:
>>Sharon Hooley ask: "Is there a difference between the Catholic Bible and 
>>the new Jerusalem Bible?"
>>
>>Angel wrote: "There is no such thing as a 'Catholic' bible. The Roman 
>>Catholic church recognizes the New Jerusalem bible, however.  She 
>>recognizes all bibles which are translated from the Septuagint wherein are 
>>found the deuterocanonical books."
>>
>>john schwery comments: When I see a version with the Apocrypha added, that 
>>is a Catholic Bible."
>>
>>Grant comments:  Below I will provide several quotations which indicate 
>>that there is a Roman Catholic version of the Bible officially designated 
>>by the Council of Trent, 1546. I also provide the info from the title page 
>>of a braille New Testament given to me 45 years ago which seems to 
>>indicate that there is a Roman Catholic Bible.
>>
>>Begin:
>>  The New Testament of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Translated from the Vulgate, 
>> A Revision of the Challoner-Rhemes Version, Edited by Catholic Schollars, 
>> under the Patronage of THE EPISCOPAL COMMITTEE of the CONFRATERNITY OF 
>> CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE, St. Anthony Guild Press, Patterson, New Jersey. End 
>> of quotation.
>>This comes in ten braille volumes with multitudinous explanatory notes 
>>reflecting Roman Catholic views.
>>
>>Secondly, I quote numerous snipits from: Baker Encyclopedia of Christian 
>>Apologetics, Norman L. Geisler, 1999. This is lengthy. I will provide the 
>>entire 8 pages if you want to read the full section. Write me off list.
>>Begin:
>>     Apocrypha, Old and New Testaments. Apocrypha most commonly refers to 
>> disputed books that Protestants reject and Roman Catholics and Orthodox 
>> communions accept into the Old Testament. The word apocrypha means 
>> "hidden" or "doubtful." So those who accept these documents prefer to 
>> call them "deuterocanonical," or books of "the second canon."
>>     ...
>>     The Septuagint and the Apocrypha. The fact that the New Testament 
>> often quotes from other books in the Greek Old Testament in no way proves 
>> that the deuterocanonical books it contains are inspired. It is not even 
>> certain that the Septuagint of the first century contained the Apocrypha. 
>> The earliest Greek manuscripts that include them date from the fourth 
>> century A.D.
>>     ...
>>     It is also important to remember that these books were not part of 
>> the Christian (New Testament period) writings. Hence, they were not under 
>> the province of the Christian church to decide. They were the province of 
>> the Jewish community which wrote them and which had, centuries before, 
>> rejected them as part of the canon.
>>     ...
>>     The Catholic Arguments in Summary. At best, all that the arguments 
>> urged in favor of the canonicity of the apocryphal books prove is that 
>> various apocryphal books were given varied degrees of esteem by various 
>> persons within the Christian church, usually falling short of claims for 
>> the books' canonicity. Only after Augustine and the local councils he 
>> dominated pronounced them inspired did they gain wider usage and eventual 
>> infallible acceptance by the Roman Catholic church at Trent. This falls 
>> far short of the kind of initial, continual, and full recognition among 
>> Christian churches of the canonical books of the Protestant Old Testament 
>> and Jewish Torah (which exclude the Apocrypha). True canonical books were 
>> received immediately by the people of God into the growing canon of 
>> Scripture. ... Any subsequent debate was by those who were not in a 
>> position, as was the immediate audience, to know whether they were from 
>> an accredited apostle or prophet. ...
>>     Arguments for the Protestant Canon. Evidence indicates that the 
>> Protestant canon, consisting of the thirty-nine books of the Hebrew Bible 
>> and excluding the Apocrypha, is the true canon. The only difference 
>> between the Protestant and ancient Palestinian Canon lies in 
>> organization. The ancient Bible lists twenty-four books.... The 
>> Palestinian Jews represented Jewish orthodoxy Therefore, their canon was 
>> recognized as the orthodox one. It was the canon of Jesus, Josephus, and 
>> Jerome. It was the canon of many early church fathers, among them Origen, 
>> Cyril of Jerusalem, and Athanasius.
>>     ...
>>     Jewish Rejection. In addition to the evidence for the propheticity of 
>> only the books of the Jewish and Protestant Old Testament, there is an 
>> unbroken line of rejection of the Apocrypha as canon by Jewish and 
>> Christian teachers.
>>     Philo, an Alexandrian Jewish teacher (20 B.C.-A.D. 40), quoted the 
>> Old Testament prolifically from virtually every canonical book. However, 
>> he never once quoted from the Apocrypha as inspired.
>>     Josephus (A.D. 30-100), a Jewish historian, explicitly excludes the 
>> Apocrypha, numbering the Old Testament as twenty two books (= thirty-nine 
>> books in Protestant Old Testament). Neither does he ever quote an 
>> Apocryphal book as Scripture, though he was familiar with them. In 
>> Against Apion (1.8) he wrote:
>>     For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, 
>> disagreeing from and contradicting one another [as the Greeks have] but 
>> only twenty-two books, which are justly believed to be divine; and of 
>> them, five belong to Moses, which contain his law, and the traditions of 
>> the origin of mankind till his death. This interval of time was little 
>> short of three thousand years; but as to the time from the death of Moses 
>> till the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, who reigned at Xerxes, the 
>> prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times 
>> in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and 
>> precepts for the conduct of human life. [Josephus, 1.8.
>>     These correspond exactly to the Jewish and Protestant Old Testament, 
>> which excludes the Apocrypha.
>>     The Jewish teachers acknowledged that their prophetic line ended in 
>> the fourth century B.C. Yet, as even Catholics acknowledge, all 
>> apocryphal books were written after this time.
>>     ...
>>     Jesus and the New Testament writers never quoted from the Apocrypha 
>> as Scripture, even though they were aware of these writings and alluded 
>> to them at times (e.g., Heb. 11:35 may allude to 2 Maccabees 7, 12, 
>> though this may be a reference to the canonical book of Kings; see 1 
>> Kings 17:22). Yet hundreds of quotations in the New Testament cite the 
>> Old Testament canon. The authority with which they are cited indicates 
>> that the New Testament writers believed them to be part of the "Law and 
>> Prophets" [i.e., whole Old Testament] which was believed to be the 
>> inspired and infallible Word of God (Matt. 5:17-18; cf. John 10:35), 
>> Jesus quoted from throughout the Old Testament "Law and Prophets," which 
>> he called "all the Scriptures" (Luke 24:27).
>>    ...
>>     Early church council rejection. No canonic list or council of the 
>> Christian church accepted the Apocrypha as inspired for nearly the first 
>> four centuries. This is significant, since all of the lists available and 
>> most of the fathers of this period omit the Apocrypha. The first councils 
>> to accept the Apocrypha were only local ones without ecumenical force. 
>> The Catholic contention that the Council of Rome (382), though not an 
>> ecumenical council, had ecumenical force because Pope Damasus (304-384) 
>> ratified it is without grounds. It begs the question, assuming that 
>> Damasus was a Pope with infallible authority. Second, even Catholics 
>> acknowledge this council was not an ecumenical body. Third, not all 
>> Catholic scholars agree that such affirmations by Popes are infallible. 
>> There are no infallible lists of infallible statements by Popes. Nor are 
>> there any universally agreed upon criteria for developing such lists. At 
>> best, appealing to a Pope to make infallible a statement by a local 
>> council is a double-edged sword. Even Catholic scholars admit that some 
>> Popes taught error and were even heretical.
>>     Early fathers' rejection. Early fathers of the Christian church spoke 
>> out against the Apocrypha. This included Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, 
>> Athanasius, and the great Roman Catholic Bible translator, Jerome.
>>     ...
>>     Conclusion. Differences over the Old Testament Apocrypha play a 
>> crucial role in Roman Catholic and Protestant differences over such 
>> teachings as purgatory and prayers for the dead. There is no evidence 
>> that the Apocryphal books are inspired and, therefore, should be part of 
>> the canon of inspired Scripture. They do not claim to be inspired, nor is 
>> inspiration credited to them by the Jewish community that produced them. 
>> They are never quoted as Scripture in the New Testament. Many early 
>> fathers, including Jerome, categorically rejected them. Adding them to 
>> the Bible with an infallible decree at the Council of Trent shows 
>> evidence of being a dogmatic and polemical pronouncement calculated to 
>> bolster support for doctrines that do not find clear support in any of 
>> the canonical books.... (End of quotations.)
>>
>>Hopefully this has been helpful to your understanding of Biblical history 
>>and its canonicity.
>>
>>Listening for His shout!
>>
>>Grant E. Metcalf
>>Bartimaeus Alliance of the Blind, Inc.
>>Email:  [log in to unmask]
>>Desk:  650-754-4207
>>Home:  650-589-6890
>>Website:  http://bartimaeus.us/
>
> John