www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Scripture and Patristic Writings New Bible, Apocrypha

Previously I owned a NRSV Bible with the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha was in an appendix between the Old and New Testament. The "Apocrypha" was extensive. Not only was there the 7 additional Roman Catholic books and the add-ons to Daniel and Esther. There was also 3 and 4 Maccabees, the Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151, and 1 and 2 Esdras. I bought this great Bible on Ebay. I have since purchased other Bibles with parts of the Apocrypha, and sadly my original NRSV wore out and I had to throw it away. I was very happy to find a pretty nice RSV Bible with the Catholic Old-Testament Books and 1&2 Esdras and The Prayer of Manasseh. Printed on the front of this Bible in gold is the title "Common Bible." This is a Bible to bridge denominational gaps. Not only is much of the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Apocrypha included; this is also a Bible that has been approved and acclaimed by Protestant ministers, an Anglican Archbishop, more than one Roman Catholic Archbishop, and a Greek Orthodox Archbishop. I knew that the RSV had been adopted by the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox for many of there Bibles, but this "Common Bible" that I bought at the library book sale really bridges the denomination gap by including the Apocryphal books and having so much on the back from leaders of the different churches. I would like to see more of this in the future. What it reminds me of is the New English Bible acclaimed by British Protestant churches, but the RSV "Common Bible" includes Roman and Eastern brothers as well.

I have an NRSV like the one you used to have, and love it.

I have created this (second) thread as a continue of my previous posting "New Bible, Apocrypha." I am very happy with the selection of "Apocrypha" in my RSV "Common Bible." But what else should be included in a Bible to bridge denominational gaps? We could include articles by Catholic and Protestant apologists, or a homily on the Eastern Orthodox creed. Maybe a back appendix could hold a vast expanse of materials. But should such junk be included in a Bible? What is in a books appendix isn't necessarily part of the book itself, but for the Bible we should include only materials from the general time frame of the work that might explain some of the denominational interpretations that we come across. In the British museum there is translation of the Septuagint and New Testament with a translation of Clement's first epistle to the Corinthians. This Bible was made by Cyril patriarch of Alexandria and presented to King Charles of England. A book I purchased titled "The Lost Books of the Bible and the forgotten books of Eden" contains the full text of Clement's epistle with a introduction that mentions Cyril's Bible. Also included in "The Lost Books of the Bible and the forgotten books of Eden" is couple of Marian gospels, the lost gospels of Peter and Nicodemus, the infancy gospels, and a lot of early church material. In the latter part of the book, "the forgotten books of Eden," there is Jewish based material such as 1&2 Adam and Eve, 4 Maccabees, and the Odes and Psalms of Solomon. This is all interesting to read, at least. But it is also informative and I believe it can help us understand some of the extra-Biblical interpretations that people have about Biblical things. To prove my point I would like to point out that the text of the Gospel of Nicodemus was made into mystery play that was performed throughout Europe into the Middle Ages and influenced modern beliefs about the harrowing of hell. To end this post I like to mention that another book I have, "The Bible Throughout the Ages," has a table showing that some early bishops considered including The Shepherd of Hermas, The Apocalypse of Peter, Wisdom of Solomon, The Didache, Epistle of Barnabas, and Acts of Paul in the New Testament canon.

RickyJ1987:

Christ is Risen!! Indeed He is Risen!!

Welcome to the forum. I have merged your two threads because they deal essentially with the same topic.

You mention "the Eastern Orthodox creed." I will take a guess and assume that you mean the Nicene Creed, common to all of the Apostolic Churches--Latin, Byzantine Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox, as well as some Protestant communions and ecclesial bodies.

I doubt that a bible can bridge the very deep differences among the Christian Churches and other Christian groups because each begins from a different set of assumptions. The idea that Scripture itself can reveal a "plain sense" is a Protestant assumption not shared by the Apostolic Churches, for example.

As for the "lost books," it was precisely the fact that the Church found them not to be reliable in the transmission of the Faith that they were rejected and have no place in Church worship or study for the purpose of developing our faith life.

Bob
Moderator

"I doubt that a bible can bridge the very deep differences among the Christian Churches and other Christian groups because each begins from a different set of assumptions. The idea that Scripture itself can reveal a "plain sense" is a Protestant assumption not shared by the Apostolic Churches, for example."

But a common Bible, one which includes material from different denominations will open up discussion between Christians. It is also possible that if people are reading the same Bible translation that they will find it easier to communicate, which is why it is nice that Catholic and Eastern churches are starting to accept mainline translations and that mainline translators are willing to include the deuterocanonical books in their Bibles. Seeing a Catholic man or Orthodox fellow with RSV or NRSV lets Protestants see that at least those people read the Bible and not a book called Douay-Rheims.

Christ is Risen!!

I find this to be offensive. The whole issue of Bibles rests on the canonical authority of the Church that approves it. This particular translation was approved by the Church. What is your issue here?

The translations you cite may or may not have official approval by the Church, whether you define that as the Catholic or Orthodox Church. So what are you proposing?

I don't see any biblical scholarship as being useful for study or teaching unless it's approved by on the two Churches mentioned. And if it's done by a scholar outside one of them, then it seems to me that it needs to be critcally evaluated by Church authority before the average Christian ought to use it.

You continue to use this term "denomination" which has no real meaning to those of the Eastern Churches. You either have a Chruch of Apostolic origin--one that can trace its origin to the Apostolic age or you don't.

Bob

"I find this to be offensive. The whole issue of Bibles rests on the canonical authority of the Church that approves it. This particular translation was approved by the Church. What is your issue here?"

I don't mean to be offensive, I just think that its nice that apostolic churches are okay with using some modern translations. It makes Catholics and Orthodox seem less strange to Protestants. Most Protestants don't even know what "Douay-Rheims" means, and it helps people get along if we both understand what each other is reading; they will also be more willing to trust a scripture verse if they hear it in one their translations. But since the RSV, NRSV, NKJV, GNT and other modern Bibles are approved by the Catholic and Orthodox churches these are also good for teaching the faith to believers. And the only reason I use the word "denomination," is because that is what a lot of people are, and I think would be nice if denominational Christians could be on friendly terms with apostolic people. There are actually a lot of nice Protestants in this world.

Unfortunately, some of these have had the "thumbs down" from Catholic authorities since the translation norms of "Authentic Liturgy" came out a bit over a decade ago. It's cause quite a stir among biblical scholars, not the least of which are many Catholic scholars. Antyhing that has vertical or horizontal feminist language is not supposed to be used for study or teaching.

For Catholics, the final word is at Rome when it comes to Scripture translations, so even if some local bishop has something good to say about a translation it ultimately means nothing unless his superiors give it the stamp of apporval.

Believe me when I tell you that this shift in Catholic approach does nothing for the move in the world to find common ground for scripture translation or for many other areas on the road to communion.

I doubt many Catholics know what Douay-Rheims is about either--LOL. If we sat together and asked a roomful, asking for a buck apiece for the wrong answer we could treat ourselves to a good meal, a beer, and invite a big group from this forum along, too. On the other hand, given my experience in my work, I think you'd find very few Bibles in Catholic homes of any translation so reading something in common would still present a problem. You will find, however, a good group in this place, most of whom buy, read, and study from multiple translation sources including most of the ones you mention.

I don't think there is a divide between Christians who think of themselves in terms of "denomination" or Church. I think it calls us all to think of ourselves as brothers and sisters because we all have a common teacher Who we claim to follow. My point was to call your attention to something that is more than terminology when you approach the Eastern Churches. The phenomenon of Protestantism is not part of the Eastern Church's history and so terms that you may find familiar and automatic may sound alien.

Our purpose at this forum is learn about the Eastern Churches, their worldview, their terminology, their theology and spirituality in order to better understand the uniqueness that is theirs.

Bob

Considering that Douay-Rheims and the King James Bible both depend heavily on Tyndale, they must have something close to 85-90% in common, so I would think the things that make Catholics and Orthodox seem strange to Protestants has nothing to do with what Bible we use (though, to be honest, I think the New American Bible makes the Catholic Church look very strange indeed). Rather, it's our liturgy, our spirituality, our doctrine and our disciplines that are alien to Protestants. No common Bible translation is going to do that, and every Bible translation is to some extent flawed. Beyond that, Catholics and Orthodox don't even use the same Bible, nor should they. So why this attempt to create homogeneity where none can or should exist?

ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ ΑΝΕΣΤΗ!

I sometimes use a 1970 Oxford University Press edition of the "New English Bible with Apocrypha". It is quite readable and Dynamic Equivalent, but not as paraphrasic as some modern translations. It has translator's notes and annotations at the bottom of each page. This edition is easily carried about.

The NEB New Testament is based on an eclectic Alexandrian Greek text compiled especially for this translation and published separately in 1964. Personally, I prefer a Byzantine Greek textform. So for me this is a reference translation, not a principle reader.

The NEB Old Testament is translated from the Hebrew BHK, third edition, with some passages influenced by the Dead Sea Scrolls, and LXX. The apocrypha are translated from H. B. Swete's Greek edition, but lack 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, Prayer of Manasseh, and Psalm 151. 2nd Esdras was translated from a Latin source.

This Bible is out of print but can often be had for a small sum on the used book market. I would recommend the hard back edition if available.

μιχαηλ