Missing pages from one's bible

[Marumorose]

May God

I have a New Cambridge Paragraph Bible, which is a King James Version with all of the canonical books included (73 of them), but with seven of them and parts of two more in a kind of intertestamental appendix, as is the custom with the KJV. And I have numerous Catholic bibles with 73 canonical books. And I have some Protestant versions with only 66 books in them which means about 288 to 300 pages are missing from the 66 book versions. What do you good people do when you think about the missing pages? Does it bother you or are you happy as happy can be to have around 300 pages missing from your bible?

May God Bless You. I downloaded the KJVA bible app with 84 books and the lost books app! I am seeking the Truth! The more you read the more wisdom of God you get

 

[Philip_B]

Both; at the very least it was before Protestant Christians came into being.

And you and I both know that breaks the convention you enunciated earlier in the thread.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

And you and I both know that breaks the convention you enunciated earlier in the thread.

Which convention?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

May God

May God Bless You. I downloaded the KJVA bible app with 84 books and the lost books app! I am seeking the Truth! The more you read the more wisdom of God you get

You can download the Catholic translation - Douay Rheims Bible - it is available free of charge.

 

[Erose]

Is that Catholic Christians or catholic Christians? just checking!

Well at that time all Christians were Catholic.

 

[Philip_B]

Well at that time all Christians were Catholic.

Did you mean to say all Christians were catholic?

 

[Philip_B]

Which convention?

It's my habit to type Catholic Church when I intend the churches in communion with the bishop of Rome and to type catholic when I intend something along the lines of 'according to the whole [body of christians]'. The former is about a specific Church the latter is about what is generally received. Thus, the Nicene Creed is catholic while the Catechism of the Catholic Church appertains to precisely one Church.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Did you mean to say all Christians were catholic?

In the 4th Century AD all Christians were Catholic, at that time there was One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church; the first major split was still almost 100 years away - I am thinking of the split that created the Oriental Orthodox churches.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Is that Catholic Christians or catholic Christians? just checking!

Both; at the very least it was before Protestant Christians came into being.

And you and I both know that breaks the convention you enunciated earlier in the thread.

It looks like it follows the convention I mentioned. Both Catholic and Orthodox, or, as you suggested Catholic Christians and catholic Christians accepted at least the 73 books that the council of Florence ratified, and this was so before Protestantism existed, before Martin Luther was busy in the works he did from 1521 onwards.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

May God

May God Bless You. I downloaded the KJVA bible app with 84 books and the lost books app! I am seeking the Truth! The more you read the more wisdom of God you get

You may be able to download e-sword from here and e-sword has the KJVA as well as the DRB.
God bless.

 

[Philip_B]

Both; at the very least it was before Protestant Christians came into being.

It looks like it follows the convention I mentioned. Both Catholic and Orthodox, or, as you suggested Catholic Christians and catholic Christians accepted at least the 73 books that the council of Florence ratified, and this was so before Protestantism existed, before Martin Luther was busy in the works he did from 1521 onwards.

No. It looks like you didn't. There were western and eastern Christians, Capital C Catholic can only mean lowercase c catholic until you start talking about Protestants.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

No. It looks like you didn't. There were western and eastern Christians, Capital C Catholic can only mean lowercase c catholic until you start talking about Protestants.

Eastern Christians were Catholic in 397 AD; they were in communion with the bishop of Rome.

 

[Philip_B]

Eastern Christians were Catholic in 397 AD; they were in communion with the bishop of Rome.

Eastern Christians are catholic. I don't intend to rehash the debate about the Great Schism, save to say it was;t the Eastern Church that saw fit to change the Creed of the Councils, so it may be that it is the Western Church that is in schism.

The difficulty I have is that the premise you propose for catholicity is communion with the Bishop of Rome. That is not an understanding that is shared universally. It certainly doesn't take into account how the term was formed from two Greek words.

Interestingly, I am not opposed to the notion of the Primacy of the ancient see, however that is a primacy of honour, not a primacy of authority. See Mark 10:42-45.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I don't intend to rehash the debate about the Great Schism

The east-west schism is still 650 years in the future from 397 AD. Your comment is ahistorical.

 

[Philip_B]

The east-west schism is still 650 years in the future from 397 AD. Your comment is ahistorical.

Thank you for clarifying that point, though as I have no doubt you already appreciate I am aware of when the Council of Hippo to which you refer occurred, and indeed also when the Great Scism occurred. The Church has always been, and will ever be catholic. This of course is the second note of the Church in the Creed of the 1st Council of Constantinople. In your terms to refer to the Church as Catholic in this period is to appropriate all of early Church History to that part of the Church in Communion with Rome.

My point is that the Catholic Church is catholic, save for when it argues that the catholic church is the Catholic Church, at which point contra to the meaning of the word it is seeking to exclude some from the catholic church, at which point it ceases to have any real claim to catholicity in terms of a proper understanding of the second note of the creed.

I am not anti-catholic, nor am I anti-Catholic. I think that the catholicity of the church is important, it is not simply the name of a church, it is also a vital descriptor of the whole Church.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

In your terms to refer to the Church as Catholic in this period is to appropriate all of early Church History to that part of the Church in Communion with Rome.

All of the Church in 397 AD was in communion with Rome.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

My point is that the Catholic Church is catholic, save for when it argues that the catholic church is the Catholic Church, at which point contra to the meaning of the word it is seeking to exclude some from the catholic church, at which point it ceases to have any real claim to catholicity in terms of a proper understanding of the second note of the creed.

This is an interesting exercise in capitalisation, but the truth is that all of the church was in communion with Rome in 397 AD.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I am not anti-catholic, nor am I anti-Catholic. I think that the catholicity of the church is important, it is not simply the name of a church, it is also a vital descriptor of the whole Church.

This is a point in dispute since the Oriental Orthodox schism, reiterated after the Orthodox schism, and reiterated again with the Protestant schism - and before someone objects to the use of the word schism in relation to Oriental Orthodoxy, Orthodoxy, and Protestantism I want to point out that history uses terms such as "great schism" and "protestant revolt" so I am using schism as a marker for a period when one church splits with another or when a group of churches splits with one other.

In 397 AD all of the churches were in communion with Rome, after the fifth century AD the Oriental Orthodox were no longer in communion with Rome, and after the eleventh century the Orthodox were no longer in communion with Rome, and after the sixteenth century the churches of Protestantism were no longer in communion with Rome.

 

[The Liturgist]

It was a mistake for saint Jerome to translate from the Hebrew texts in preference to translating from the LXX. Modern translators tend to favour the Masoretic text for their translation work in the Old Testament. But saint Jerome had - one presumes - more manuscripts in Greek and possibly more in Hebrew to draw from, potentially anyway. And because the New Testament quotes from the LXX frequently he had apostolic example to follow regarding the use of the LXX as source for translating the Old Testament.

He definitely had more Hebrew/Aramaic versions available, and were it not for his contempt for Origen, which is legendary, he could have benefitted from the Hexapla, the world’s first parallel Bible (or Old Testament, rather) which was still intact then, and had the LXX and the various different Hebraic manuscript traditions, like Symacchus and Aquila.

Also, being so pedantic as to refuse to call any Bishop of Rome before the 530s Pope, for since its introduction in I think 237 it was used only in Alexandria for the first 300 years, I also naturally in the same spirit of Pedantry make a point of saying Hebraic or Hebrew and Aramaic, because not only are entire books like Daniel written in Aramaic, but the script Jewish versions of the Bible are written in is a 22 letter subset of Imperial Aramaic script (the Samaritans continue to use a script descended from Paleo-Hebrew writing), and Aramaic words and passages tend to pop up all over the Old Testament, even in places where you would least expect it. I recall there is an Aramaic word in Genesis, for example. In antiquity, Greeks and Romans had a tendency not to differentiate between Hebrew and Aramaic when talking about Hebraic writings, so it is only with translators like St. Jerome we find mention of it.

This is admittedly pure pedantry on my part and you are entirely justified in finding this annoying.

 

[JSRG]

He definitely had more Hebrew/Aramaic versions available, and were it not for his contempt for Origen, which is legendary, he could have benefitted from the Hexapla, the world’s first parallel Bible (or Old Testament, rather) which was still intact then, and had the LXX and the various different Hebraic manuscript traditions, like Symacchus and Aquila.

Didn't Jerome use the Hexapla? The Catholic Encyclopedia (original) says this in its article on the Hexapla:

"The Hexaplar text also influenced St. Jerome very strongly in his first two translations of the Psalter into Latin, the Psalterium Romanum and (particularly) the Gallicanum. Saint Jerome also followed the Hexaplar text, for which he had a very high regard, as the basis of his translations, no longer extant, of other books. The same influence is further seen in the Coptic (Sahidic), the Arabic, and the Armenian versions. If the original Septuagint text be taken as the standard, it is unquestionable that Origen's influence, both upon the Septuagint and its daughter versions, ultimately availed, through the negligence of copyists, to remove them further from the pristine purity of the Biblical text; but by all those who regard the Hexaplar text, by reason of its insertions and corrections from the textus receptus, as nearer to the original Hebrew than is the Septuagint, his influence must be judged to have worked, on the whole, for the spread of a truer text. The Hexaplar manuscript was kept at Cæsarea in Palestine, where it was consulted by Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Jerome; it disappeared from sight shortly after the beginning of the seventh century."

See: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Hexapla