The Intermountain Catholic. (Salt Lake City [Utah] ;) 1899-1920, 1903-06-06
VERSIONS OF THE BIBLE.
Hartford, Conn.

Hartford, Conn.
To the Editor of the Transcript:
Dear Sir: To decide discussion,
please answer the following Ques'
tions:
l. How many books in the Catho-
lie Bible, and how many in the King
James or Protestant Bible? Give list
of the books of each version.
2. What are the main objections to
the Protestant Bible from Catholic
standpoint?
8. Why are the Catholics opposed
to the reading of the Protestant Bible
in public schools?
l am yours respectfully,
A CONSTANT READER.
l. In the Catholic Bible there are
seventy-two books-forty-ive in the
Old Testament, twenty-seven in the
new. In the Protestant Bible" there
are sixty-fiYe books-thirty- y-eight in
the Old Testament, twenty-seven in
the New. The names of the books
declared sacred and canonical" by
the Council of Trent are: Genesis,
Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuter-
onomy, Josue, Judges, Ruth, four
pomenon, the first book of Esdras,
and the second, called Nehemias,
Tobias, Judith, Esther Job, the
Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the
Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ec-
clesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, Baruch,
Ezechiel, Daniel, Osee, Joel, Amos,
Abdias. Jonas, Michaes, Nahum, Ha-
bacus. Sophonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias,
Malachias, two books of Machabees.
And in the New Testament, Matthew,
Luke. John, the Acts of the Apostles,
fourteen epistles of st. Paul-one to
the Romans, two to the Corinthians,
one to the Galatians, one also to the
Epresians, two to the Philippians, to
the Colossians, two to the Thessalo-
mans, two to Timothy, one to Titus,
one to Philemon, one to the Hebrews;
two of St. Peter the Apostle, three OF
st. John thea Apostle, one of James
and one of Jude, last, the Apocalypse.
The seven books rejected as non
canonical by the Protestants are all
from the Old Testament. They are
Tobias. Judith Wisdom, Ecclesiasti-
Gus, Baruch and the first and second
book of Machabees. Apart from these
seven the number of books in the King
James version is identical with that
of the Catholic version.
2. The main objection to the Pro-
testant Bible, from Catholic stand
point, is that it is sectarian-that is,
Protestant. The translators of the au-
thorized, or King James, version did
not scruple to take liberties with the
sacred text. Although it was the in
spired word of God, it had to bend to
their bias and yield to their precon-
ceived notions of the eternal fitness
of things. You would not accept this
charge on Catholic authority. Let me
quote from non-Catholic sources: Cell,
chaplain to DR.. Abbott, the Protest
ant Archbishop of Canterbury, speak
ing of the King James translation,
says: "Dogmatic interests were in
some cases allowed to bias the trans
lation, and the Calvinism of one par
ty, the prelatic view Of another, were
both presented at the expense OF ac-
curacy." The Protestant Bishop Eli
colt wrote quite recently: "In site OF
the very common assumption to the
contrary, there are many passages in
the version of 1611-i. e. King James
from which erroneous doctrinal in
ferences have been drawn. But where
the inference comes from the trans
lation, and not from the original. You
see at once that this is tantamount
to charging the translators with fall
styling the text, and that, too, not in
minor points, but in "doctrinal" points,
where every perversion of the truth
IL ,,sr - fn1a In
deed, Archbishop Spalding, in his
History of the Protestant Reforma- |
tion." declares that 'the version of
King James, on its first appearance in
England, was openly decried by the
Protestant ministers as abounding in
gross perversions of the original text"
The fact is, Protestant biblical
scholars have never been satisfied
with the King James version. On
its appearance Hugh Broughton, the
foremost Hebrew scholar of the day, |
attacked it with vigor. DR.. Lightfoot,
whose learning has been admired by
ten generations of scholars, argued
powerfully in Parliament for "a re-
view and survey of the translation OF
the Bible, that the three nations might !
come to understand the proper and
genuine study of Scriptures by an ex-
act. vigorous and lively translation"
The King James version was so un-
favorably received by those for whose
use it was prepared that it seemed at
first destined to fall into desuetude.
But it was rendered into superb Eng
lish and the Kings authority was
back of it. 1t gradually grew in IA
vor among the masses, and SO in the
reign of Queen Anne it became not
only popular, but the object of "a tide
of glowing panegyric."
Scholars, however, were never sat
isfied with the work of the transla-
tors. They urged the necessity of a
revision, but they urged in vain for
centuries. 1t is almost in our own
day that they succeeded in gaining
their point. The Revised Version"
appeared about twenty years ago. 1t /
brought CONSERVATION to all who were
devoted to the old translation. In the /
New Testament alone no less than
$4,000 emendations are found. Those
who were familiar with the old YER
sion we're inconsolable. Most of |
them" says DR.. Schaff, himself a