Biblical Authority

[Athanasius377]

But there was no agreement on everything yet. There were many books/writings that were thought to be inspired that didn't make the cut, like the Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas, etc. Even some of the epistles that are part of the New Testament were relatively little known yet. And there was no Bible under one cover yet. This was all accomplished and finalized through the Councils of Rome, Hippo. and Carthage. They also chose the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, then, too. (There were two versions of the Old Testament, one in Greek and one in Hebrew. The canon for the one in Hebrew wasn't set until the late 1st/early 2nd century as a reaction by the Jews who were unhappy about the new Christians converting Jews by using the Old Testament. And even then, they threw out seven books that had previously been there. That accounts for the difference between the Catholic and most (not all) Protestant Bibles today. Protestants switched versions to the Hebrew version that didn't have those seven books.)

@Augustin56 , this is simply false. First. I would argue that Jesus himself gave the extent of the OT in Luke 11:

Therefore also the Wisdom of God said, ‘I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and persecute,’ so that the blood of all the prophets, shed from the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the sanctuary.

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. Crossway Bibles, 2016, p. Lk 11:49–51.

Abel of course perished in Genesis and Zechariah was killed in 2 Chronicles which is not chronologically the last prophet to be killed. It is the however the last book of the Jewish ordering of the OT. It is akin to saying the entirety of the OT. Unless of course you feel the Lord Jesus made a mistake.

Second, Paul gives as an advantage of being a Jew was given the safekeeping of the oracles of God:

Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God.

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. Crossway Bibles, 2016, p. Ro 3:1–2.

As to the Septuagint, or LXX, this was originally just the Torah. Later versions contained the other books of the OT and the translation quality is, eh, varied. So reasons to accept the LXX are that most of the quotations of the OT in the NT are from the LXX. However some are from the text we call the Masonic text and others appear to be from the Targum. And I would add no one is arguing for the scriptural status of the Targum. As to the LXX there are several books that were attached to versions of the LXX that were not part of the Jewish canon. Including additions to Esther and Daniel as well as other books that were well regarded by early Christians. Those books were carried conditionally as their canonical status was uncertain. Jerome, the translator of the Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible did not believe they were scripture. Neither did other early church fathers that were more familiar with Jewish culture and tradition. Including Athanasius who gives us the first complete canon list in 367, decades before the councils you mention. Furthermore those councils did not carry universal authority because they were local in scope. Rome did not dogmatically define the canon until 1546 at the council of Trent in response to the reformation which launched the Catholic reformation.

As to the charge the Protestants went with the Hebrew edition of the OT, there is truth in that for the reasons stated above. However, Luther and even the KJV translators did not remove those books, but rather, like those that came before, kept the books in an appendix. An appendix that wasn’t removed until the 1800s to bring down the cost of printing bibles. Those books that appear only in the LXX are still read from in the Eucharistic lectionaries and daily office lectionaries in both Anglican and Lutheran churches to this day in keeping with the older tradition that Rome jettisoned in favor of the dogmatic declaration of 1546. These books still carry authority in our tradition but they are not regarded as scripture.

Lastly, is not the New American Bible in whatever revision is currently in use by the USCCB translated from the Hebrew in the OT but adds the disputed books?

A.

 

[JohnDB]

@Augustin56 , this is simply false. First. I would argue that Jesus himself gave the extent of the OT in Luke 11:

Therefore also the Wisdom of God said, ‘I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and persecute,’ so that the blood of all the prophets, shed from the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the sanctuary.

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. Crossway Bibles, 2016, p. Lk 11:49–51.

Abel of course perished in Genesis and Zechariah was killed in 2 Chronicles which is not chronologically the last prophet to be killed. It is the however the last book of the Jewish ordering of the OT. It is akin to saying the entirety of the OT. Unless of course you feel the Lord Jesus made a mistake.

Second, Paul gives as an advantage of being a Jew was given the safekeeping of the oracles of God:

Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God.

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. Crossway Bibles, 2016, p. Ro 3:1–2.

As to the Septuagint, or LXX, this was originally just the Torah. Later versions contained the other books of the OT and the translation quality is, eh, varied. So reasons to accept the LXX are that most of the quotations of the OT in the NT are from the LXX. However some are from the text we call the Masonic text and others appear to be from the Targum. And I would add no one is arguing for the scriptural status of the Targum. As to the LXX there are several books that were attached to versions of the LXX that were not part of the Jewish canon. Including additions to Esther and Daniel as well as other books that were well regarded by early Christians. Those books were carried conditionally as their canonical status was uncertain. Jerome, the translator of the Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible did not believe they were scripture. Neither did other early church fathers that were more familiar with Jewish culture and tradition. Including Athanasius who gives us the first complete canon list in 367, decades before the councils you mention. Furthermore those councils did not carry universal authority because they were local in scope. Rome did not dogmatically define the canon until 1546 at the council of Trent in response to the reformation which launched the Catholic reformation.

As to the charge the Protestants went with the Hebrew edition of the OT, there is truth in that for the reasons stated above. However, Luther and even the KJV translators did not remove those books, but rather, like those that came before, kept the books in an appendix. An appendix that wasn’t removed until the 1800s to bring down the cost of printing bibles. Those books that appear only in the LXX are still read from in the Eucharistic lectionaries and daily office lectionaries in both Anglican and Lutheran churches to this day in keeping with the older tradition that Rome jettisoned in favor of the dogmatic declaration of 1546. These books still carry authority in our tradition but they are not regarded as scripture.

Lastly, is not the New American Bible in whatever revision is currently in use by the USCCB translated from the Hebrew in the OT but adds the disputed books?

A.

The Current Bibles being published use a conglomeration of manuscripts that edit out obvious additions, deletions, summaries, or copyist mistakes. Alexandrian, Syriac, and Masoretic texts.
For the Old Testament it's Biblica Hebraica Stuttengartensia (BHS for short)
And United Bible Society version 4 for the New Testament (although I hear both have newer updates)
If you are interested in textual criticism I recommend the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. This statement goes in depth about some of the variations in the manuscripts and proves we have a very accurate Bible today in spite of continued traditions which corrupt the text. (There are notes in EVERY translation)

Virtually all new Bibles are based on these. There is the Novum Testament Graece...but it's rather eclectic and not used very often.

The Catholics use two NRSV-CE and NAB-CE and both can be found in use without the "ce" in churches....meaning they don't use the apocryphal inserts.

However....Catholics tend to focus less on scriptures and more on Catechisms and etc....and most Catholics are discouraged (in America) from reading scriptures. American Catholics are a rather strange breed of Catholics differing from the rest of the world. So if your experience is only with these....you are missing out on the way the rest of the world views Catholocism. And denigrating them is not likely to set well with people.

 

[GodsGrace]

There is just one type of believer.

Ephesians 4:3-5 - endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

1 Corinthians 12:12-14 - For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ. 13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit. 14 For in fact the body is not one member but many.

The above is very nice sounding, isn't it?
So every believer that you encounter believes exactly the same doctrine?
You're living in a very special world.

Let's take a look:

2 Timothy 3:16
16All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

Is every preacher teaching the same doctrine?
Is every Christian you know being trained to be right with God or are some being taught that
we will always be saved, no matter what?
Can the NT be used for reproof if we don't even agree on every doctrine that is being taught?

Titus 1:9
9He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.

How is the Word trustworthy if we don't all agree on its meaning?
How can we know for sure what sound doctrine is?
Have you heard any rebuking lately?

Last one, although there are plenty more:

Romans 16:17
17I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them.

Do you see any division in Christianity?
What doctrine have YOU been taught?
Is it the same as the doctrine I've been taught?
Should I avoid you because we can't even agree that believers believe different doctrine?

Jesus meant for us to be unified in the understanding of what He taught and died for.
You're discussing the unity of Christians as to being a part of the Body of Christ.
Two different ideas....
but I'd go even further...

Are we all members of the same Body?
Does God agree with those that teach OSAS or does God demand that we obey Him?

Not as easy as posting your two verses....

 

[GodsGrace]

OSAS? How is that relevant?

Personally, I like to think that OSAS is true but there sure is a lot of warnings in scripture too. And verses which talk about blot their names out and stuff like that. So I sorta lean away from OSAS in caution. I think there's less chance of OSAS being true as a teaching than there is of it being true.

If that makes sense.

Well, to me your post makes a lot of sense because I believe OSAS to be a false doctrine.

However, that wasn't the point of my post.
The point was that we Christians don't agree on every doctrine and that I think it would be HELPFUL if we did.

Maybe, in order to be able to agree on what exactly Christendom believes, it would be necessary to have an overriding authority?
THIS was my point.
Not that I think it could ever happen...

As to OSAS, not to change the topic, it teaches that no matter what we do we can still be saved.
For the very reason you stated, this cannot be true....that would be all the warnings in the NT.
If OSAS were true, then no warnings would be necessary. The fact that all the NT writers gave many warnings is proof
that how we live our life IS very important in being right with God.

 

[GodsGrace]

The Current Bibles being published use a conglomeration of manuscripts that edit out obvious additions, deletions, summaries, or copyist mistakes. Alexandrian, Syriac, and Masoretic texts.
For the Old Testament it's Biblica Hebraica Stuttengartensia (BHS for short)
And United Bible Society version 4 for the New Testament (although I hear both have newer updates)
If you are interested in textual criticism I recommend the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. This statement goes in depth about some of the variations in the manuscripts and proves we have a very accurate Bible today in spite of continued traditions which corrupt the text. (There are notes in EVERY translation)

Virtually all new Bibles are based on these. There is the Novum Testament Graece...but it's rather eclectic and not used very often.

The Catholics use two NRSV-CE and NAB-CE and both can be found in use without the "ce" in churches....meaning they don't use the apocryphal inserts.

However....Catholics tend to focus less on scriptures and more on Catechisms and etc....and most Catholics are discouraged (in America) from reading scriptures. American Catholics are a rather strange breed of Catholics differing from the rest of the world. So if your experience is only with these....you are missing out on the way the rest of the world views Catholocism. And denigrating them is not likely to set well with people.

Hi John,
Could you please explain better what CE means?
And what do you mean that Catholics do not use Apocryphal inserts?

And I agree that Catholics are not ENCOURAGED to read scripture or try to understand it.
This is why so many JWs are former catholics - no understanding of apologetics.

 

[GodsGrace]

Yes!
The "Originalist" viewpoint.
Meaning that the original author had a current audience in mind when he wrote his gospel or letter and we need to understand it from their point of view.

Couldn't agree more.

A few years ago I became interested in reading the Early Church Fathers....
It opened my eyes to a lot.
I think if there's any conflict in our understanding of the NT, they're a good place to go.
They didn't agree on everything 100%, but their views were more or less the same and I think they're a good source.
I should say the pre-Nicene Fathers. After that the church got involved with the state and all started to change.

What do you think?

 

[MA2444]

It doesn't matter, because the church is the one that INTERPRETS Scripture, and the interpreting is about 90% of it

That's true and I have found that out for myself. One can understand perhaps 90% of scripture without having any clue what the other 10% means. It's...virtually non understandable to us.

That is, unless we have a solid connection to the Holy Spirit and we let Him interpet it for us.

 

[GodsGrace]

That's true and I have found that out for myself. One can understand perhaps 90% of scripture without having any clue what the other 10% means. It's...virtually non understandable to us.

That is, unless we have a solid connection to the Holy Spirit and we let Him interpet it for us.

MA!
What you're saying is that if we don't understand some part of scripture,
then we don't have a good connection with the Holy Spirit !

What does 1 Timothy 2:15 mean?
How about 1 Peter 3:19?

 

[MA2444]

MA!
What you're saying is that if we don't understand some part of scripture,
then we don't have a good connection with the Holy Spirit !

Hey that's a good sign that you took affront to that! There can ony be one reason why you did that, lol! Good on ya Sister!
I wondered if I'd get a response to that.

And now as Paul Harvey used to say, the rest of the story, ol.

Not to detact from what I said it is necessary to pray before we read and ask help for guidance. But there's another element to it than just the Holy Spirit speaking definitions to us! Dont really work that way unless He's in that mood to!

The other element to it is having a working knowledge of the language and customs of the people at the time it was written. In the Olivet Discourse Jesus was talking to disciples and then changed the subject on them while talking and I missed it for a long time. But since I dont know Greek or Hebrew customs I have to use BlueLetterBible.org and look up the passage and read all the footnotes and definitions and the different definitions whch can be used in different ways and can if applied change what I thought was the meaning of that passage! It shines extra light on our reading comprehension.

Luckily for those of who dont have an intimate knowledge of the language & customs we have those cool bible programs like BLB and can mouse over words and it tells you what it means and the idiosyncrcies of the word and so forth. If we dont use a concordance we will NOT understand maybe 5% of scripture. Jesus disciples were well versed in the language and all that so they knew Jesus had changed the subject immediately.

I have also seem to notice that the Holy Spirit doesnt always answer us. Because he teaches us through silence at times to also teach us patience. And the Holy Spirit hasnt exactly ever held a Hebrew class for me, or Greek! So it's all necessary for total understanding. Which we wont get in this life anyway! He said His word will never pass away. What's that mean? That we'll still be studying it in Heaven!!

 

[JohnDB]

Hi John,
Could you please explain better what CE means?
And what do you mean that Catholics do not use Apocryphal inserts?

And I agree that Catholics are not ENCOURAGED to read scripture or try to understand it.
This is why so many JWs are former catholics - no understanding of apologetics.

CE is short for "Catholic Edition".
If I wrote it funny....I meant that Catholics DO USE and their Bibles contain the apocryphal sections....it's where the whole concept of Purgatory originated from...which is strictly a Catholic doctrine.

To me,
The apocryphal sections are not scriptures and theologies are not supposed to come from them at all. However, just like the Book of Enoch they contain commonly held myths or history which were considered common knowledge...which does shed light on some things mentioned in the New Testament....such as the Festival of Lights being what we call Hannakah today. Which makes the statement "I am the light of the world" mean something more than a soft symbolic reference....because the celebration is that the lamp never went out during the seige.
Making Jesus's statement so much more. It's a promise...not a reference.

 

[Wick Stick]

@Augustin56 , this is simply false. First. I would argue that Jesus himself gave the extent of the OT in Luke 11:

Therefore also the Wisdom of God said, ‘I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and persecute,’ so that the blood of all the prophets, shed from the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the sanctuary.

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. Crossway Bibles, 2016, p. Lk 11:49–51.

Abel of course perished in Genesis and Zechariah was killed in 2 Chronicles which is not chronologically the last prophet to be killed. It is the however the last book of the Jewish ordering of the OT. It is akin to saying the entirety of the OT.

Interesting... I always thought it referred to Zechariah the father of John the Baptist. TIL

 

[Wick Stick]

However....Catholics tend to focus less on scriptures and more on Catechisms and etc....and most Catholics are discouraged (in America) from reading scriptures.

Have you ever attended a mass? Traditional Catholic churches don't have sermons, they have homilies. Which is to say that rather than giving a talk and supporting their points with verses, instead they READ a passage of Scripture and then give short comments about it.

It's virtually impossible for a regular-attending Catholic to NOT hear the entirety of the Bible

 

[JohnDB]

Have you ever attended a mass? Traditional Catholic churches don't have sermons, they have homilies. Which is to say that rather than giving a talk and supporting their points with verses, instead they READ a passage of Scripture and then give short comments about it.

It's virtually impossible for a regular-attending Catholic to NOT hear the entirety of the Bible

This may be true of the diocese in your area....but it's not universally true. Even those churches which focus on Catechisms, patriarchs, Prayers, and Psalms will still have a few verses of scriptures read and explained.

 

[GodsGrace]

Hey that's a good sign that you took affront to that! There can ony be one reason why you did that, lol! Good on ya Sister!
I wondered if I'd get a response to that.

And now as Paul Harvey used to say, the rest of the story, ol.

Yes. I remember Paul Harvey.
I think it's a sign of getting old....

Not to detact from what I said it is necessary to pray before we read and ask help for guidance. But there's another element to it than just the Holy Spirit speaking definitions to us! Dont really work that way unless He's in that mood to!

I do think we need something else....
otherwise the Holy Spirit would be telling all of Jesus' followers the same teachings.

The other element to it is having a working knowledge of the language and customs of the people at the time it was written. In the Olivet Discourse Jesus was talking to disciples and then changed the subject on them while talking and I missed it for a long time.

You gonna let us in on the secret??
How did Jesus change the subject while preaching the Olivet Discourse?

But since I dont know Greek or Hebrew customs I have to use BlueLetterBible.org and look up the passage and read all the footnotes and definitions and the different definitions whch can be used in different ways and can if applied change what I thought was the meaning of that passage! It shines extra light on our reading comprehension.

I'm impressed that the BLB changed the meaning of a verse for you and made it easier to understand or shed new light on it.
If you use this method it could work well. What I was saying is that just looking up one word won't be of much help.

I think that if we just look at the NT as a complete thought and then work conflicting (or what is thought to be conflicting) verses into t hat thought. You did this with the idea of OSAS...instead of trying to understand each verse either for it or against it, you thought out all the verses that warn us and decided that there must be a reason for these warnings. Very good method.

Luckily for those of who dont have an intimate knowledge of the language & customs we have those cool bible programs like BLB and can mouse over words and it tells you what it means and the idiosyncrcies of the word and so forth. If we dont use a concordance we will NOT understand maybe 5% of scripture. Jesus disciples were well versed in the language and all that so they knew Jesus had changed the subject immediately.

Agreed.
But what subject?
Speak to the Olivet discourse please.

I have also seem to notice that the Holy Spirit doesnt always answer us. Because he teaches us through silence at times to also teach us patience. And the Holy Spirit hasnt exactly ever held a Hebrew class for me, or Greek! So it's all necessary for total understanding. Which we wont get in this life anyway! He said His word will never pass away. What's that mean? That we'll still be studying it in Heaven!!

Gosh. I hope we'll have infused knowledge in heaven....
but who knows....you may be right.

 

[GodsGrace]

Have you ever attended a mass? Traditional Catholic churches don't have sermons, they have homilies. Which is to say that rather than giving a talk and supporting their points with verses, instead they READ a passage of Scripture and then give short comments about it.

It's virtually impossible for a regular-attending Catholic to NOT hear the entirety of the Bible

If you went to Mass every day for 3 years, you'd have heard the entire bible, both OT and NT.
Because every year the readings change .....
A, B and C verses....this takes 3 years' time.

I don't know if I'd call a homily short comments....maybe.
I think it's more of encouragement, teachings on how to live.

I will say this in support of the CC....
every homily I hear is about Jesus and directed toward what He taught.

 

[GodsGrace]

CE is short for "Catholic Edition".
If I wrote it funny....I meant that Catholics DO USE and their Bibles contain the apocryphal sections....it's where the whole concept of Purgatory originated from...which is strictly a Catholic doctrine.

Purgatory also comes from 1 Corinthians 3:11.....the burning of gold and hay.
It also comes from Revelation 21:27 ..... nothing unclean will get into heaven.

1 Corinthians absolutely does not state anything about purgatory.
Revelation could be debated, but it would make Jesus' sacrifice unnecessary, wouldn't it?

Actually, I agree that never should one verse make a doctrine.

To me,
The apocryphal sections are not scriptures and theologies are not supposed to come from them at all. However, just like the Book of Enoch they contain commonly held myths or history which were considered common knowledge...which does shed light on some things mentioned in the New Testament....such as the Festival of Lights being what we call Hannakah today. Which makes the statement "I am the light of the world" mean something more than a soft symbolic reference....because the celebration is that the lamp never went out during the seige.
Making Jesus's statement so much more. It's a promise...not a reference.

The lamp never went out during the seige....beautiful !

Of course I agree that knowing the hermeneutics would make the bible more understood but it would take a lot of study and not everyone is a scholar - certainly not me.

 

[MA2444]

You gonna let us in on the secret??
How did Jesus change the subject while preaching the Olivet Discourse?

It was the part where a few disciples came to Jesus privately and asked Him 3 questions. He answered all three questions but not in chronological order. It was in the middle of Him answering them. He said some sort of obscure word that we usually gloss right over as it seems inconsequential. It meant in Greek, now regarding or something like that and he went on tospeak of the rapture. It's in Matthew 24 somewhere. I dont have the rapture notes in front of me and I dont remember the exact verse off the top of my head.

I'm not kidding though at all. I heard a teaching on the rapture and he went all through that, why most people think it is one event when it is two events. And I followed along and looked it up with my BLB and he was right in what he said.

I dont have time to look it up right now, I have to prepare for something. But you can take a look and try to gean the verse for yourself in the meantime? Sorry for now!

 

[GodsGrace]

It was the part where a few disciples came to Jesus privately and asked Him 3 questions. He answered all three questions but not in chronological order. It was in the middle of Him answering them. He said some sort of obscure word that we usually gloss right over as it seems inconsequential. It meant in Greek, now regarding or something like that and he went on tospeak of the rapture. It's in Matthew 24 somewhere. I dont have the rapture notes in front of me and I dont remember the exact verse off the top of my head.

I'm not kidding though at all. I heard a teaching on the rapture and he went all through that, why most people think it is one event when it is two events. And I followed along and looked it up with my BLB and he was right in what he said.

I dont have time to look it up right now, I have to prepare for something. But you can take a look and try to gean the verse for yourself in the meantime? Sorry for now!

No problem.
Will do this in a little bit.
Thanks!

 

[JohnDB]

Purgatory also comes from 1 Corinthians 3:11.....the burning of gold and hay.
It also comes from Revelation 21:27 ..... nothing unclean will get into heaven.

1 Corinthians absolutely does not state anything about purgatory.
Revelation could be debated, but it would make Jesus' sacrifice unnecessary, wouldn't it?

Actually, I agree that never should one verse make a doctrine.


The lamp never went out during the seige....beautiful !

Of course I agree that knowing the hermeneutics would make the bible more understood but it would take a lot of study and not everyone is a scholar - certainly not me.

It doesn't require a scholar....
Look at this whole concept of what you just learned about Jesus's statement "I am the Light of the world" not very scholarly...simple and easy to grasp.
BUT
what it does require is someone to be more interested in expositional teaching instead of exegetical morality lessons. The modern churches do not do this....and try with all their cunning to make the scriptures seem too difficult for anyone but a scholar (like themselves) to study. Sure they may say "Read the Bible" but their behavior says, "Come to me for what it means because you aren't a scholar".
Kinda insulting IMHO.

When was the last time someone had a Hermeneutics class as a small group which explained resources and expositional guides like an atlas, dictionaries, theological dictionaries, history books, types of Concordances, and etc? What are some common mistakes in logic and symbolic understandings? A REAL way for someone to study for themselves as an average person and not a PhD....also one that doesn't insult your intelligence by being so juvenile or have you follow predetermined paths that lead to predetermined outcomes. Sure, it includes the scholarly stuff...but also a caution. It is an exercise in spinning plates on sticks.

Well....that course is currently in development by my wife and I. Beta readers in January. User acceptance testing and feedback questionnaires. first classes? Dunno, but when it's done they will be thoroughly examined, tested, and questioned.
Publishing will be before first classes by vanity presses and afterwards? Maybe by someone else. 50-250 copies are not cheap.

It's time to stop getting our morality from the pulpits and instead straight from the source.

 

[Athanasius377]

The Current Bibles being published use a conglomeration of manuscripts that edit out obvious additions, deletions, summaries, or copyist mistakes. Alexandrian, Syriac, and Masoretic texts.
For the Old Testament it's Biblica Hebraica Stuttengartensia (BHS for short)
And United Bible Society version 4 for the New Testament (although I hear both have newer updates)
If you are interested in textual criticism I recommend the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. This statement goes in depth about some of the variations in the manuscripts and proves we have a very accurate Bible today in spite of continued traditions which corrupt the text. (There are notes in EVERY translation)

Virtually all new Bibles are based on these. There is the Novum Testament Graece...but it's rather eclectic and not used very often.

The Catholics use two NRSV-CE and NAB-CE and both can be found in use without the "ce" in churches....meaning they don't use the apocryphal inserts.

However....Catholics tend to focus less on scriptures and more on Catechisms and etc....and most Catholics are discouraged (in America) from reading scriptures. American Catholics are a rather strange breed of Catholics differing from the rest of the world. So if your experience is only with these....you are missing out on the way the rest of the world views Catholocism. And denigrating them is not likely to set well with people.

All of this is true. I was focusing on the distinction between the Masoratic vs the LXX that often shows up in catholic apologetics. I have yet to have anyone mention the BHS even though it is the underlying OT text of most modern bibles.

The New American Bible (NAB) is a specifically catholic translation that I have never heard of being in print without the Apocrypha. All versions of the NAB by definition are "CE". I think you may be thinking of the NAB-RE which is the latest revision though there is another forthcoming revision due out in the next few years.
I am aware that American catholics are different especially from those hailing from the global south.

I am not sure what you think I am denigrating.