Catholic Question: Apocrapha/Deuterocanonical Book Order

Hi, forgive this closet charismatic asking a question to which I plead almost total ignorance, as I am altering my Bible Import Spreadsheet so it can cope with those extra books we who come from a protestant persuasion choose to dispute, but this is not the issue I have:

The 2 Apocrypha I have are the Douay Rheims, and KJV, but puzzlingly both have differing book layouts and the KJV appears has extra books, so I am extremely confused.

I guess what I am asking is there a "proper" order of the catholic canon of scripture?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Unix

www.usccb.org/bible/books-of-the-bible/index.cfm

Not entirely sure where to place 1-2 Ezra and the Shorter Books of the Deuterocanon and the additions to Esther and Daniel.

David Ames

The KJV traditionally puts the Books of the Apocrypha between the Testaments. The DR places them where the Vulgate [Catholic Latin] Bible put them.

David Ames

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/592782#Comment_592782

The so called additions to Daniel are seen as the last two chapters of Daniel.

The so called additions to Esther are seen as parts of Esther.

[Many state that GOD is not mentioned in Esther. Try reading the details of the prayer meetings that Esther held before going to the king.]

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :)

Suspect changing thread title to "Deuterocanonical Book Order ?" would receive more replies about proper canonical order.

Keep Smiling [:)]

DominicM

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/592785#Comment_592785

The KJV traditionally puts the Books of the Apocrypha between the Testaments. The DR places them where the Vulgate [Catholic Latin] Bible put them.

I kinda noticed that, hence the question [:P]

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/592785#Comment_592785

The KJV traditionally puts the Books of the Apocrypha between the Testaments. The DR places them where the Vulgate [Catholic Latin] Bible put them.

Noticed Maccabees placement in NAB, NABRE, and NJB is different than Vulgate, DR, and RSVCE

Keep Smiling [:)]

DominicM

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/592801#Comment_592801

OK I guess simple answer is no its not fixed, cool, will just add after OT, and let whoever uses template adjust accordingly

Unix

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/592807#Comment_592807

NABRE and NJB are the most recent versions.

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/592807#Comment_592807

Searched library for:

(Apocryphal,Deuterocanonical,Deuteroncanonical) NEAR (book,order)

Keep Smiling [:)]

SineNomine

The 2 Apocrypha I have are the Douay Rheims, and KJV, but puzzlingly both have differing book layouts and the KJV appears has extra books, so I am extremely confused.

The KJV's ordering was inspired by Protestant opponents of the Deutero-Canon, and therefore should not be considered indicative as to the Catholic ordering of Scripture. The Vulgate/DR/etc. listing order is the traditional Catholic order. The NAB/NABRE is, generally speaking... not reliable as indicative of Catholic tradition and/or practise.

David Ames

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/592801#Comment_592801

Noticed Maccabees placement in NAB, NABRE, and NJB is different than Vulgate, DR, and RSVCE

The Maccabees are history books. Putting them with the other history books makes sense. That is following Esther.

Having them after Malachi implies that they are seen as prophecy. [just IMHO]

MJ. Smith

I guess what I am asking is there a "proper" order of the catholic canon of scripture?

Not really. See the following on the Community Bible and the Peshitta:

Okay, back to your original question. You should not be concerned with the Catholic Bible. While not true in the US, the Lutherans and the Anglican share (imprecisely) the "Catholic" Bible. The Greek Orthodox and the Slavic Orthodox have differing canons - both larger than the Catholic with the Slavic larger than the Greek. The NRSV with Apocrypha includes the full Slavic Orthodox canon. That is what you should aim for. The NRSV has reached a reasonable compromise on sequence - basically using the Anglican/Lutheran sequence of the deuterocanonicals / apocrypha with books order such that at the end of the Catholic canon you have the additional books of the Greek/Slavic canon and at the end of the Greek canon you have the additional books of the Slavic canon. This is a system that all groups have learned to work with and what you should use as your model. You serve a broad range of canons favoring / slighting none.

If you would like to be a bit broader including Georgian, Armerian, Syriac, and Assyrian texts most often encountered, you could add to the NRSV:

2 Baruch (Syriac, Assyrian-Eastern)
Psalms 152-156 (Assyrian-Eastern)
3 Edras (Georgian / Armenia)
Psalms of Solomon (Greek, Syriac, Assyrian-Eastern)
Prayer of Solomon / Sirach 52 (Catholic - manuscripts)

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/592807#Comment_592807

OK I guess simple answer is no its not fixed, cool, will just add after OT,

I can't resist teasing you a bit on your language. You don't add them "after" the OT you extend the OT and allow the user to determine the canonical cutoff line.[;)]