Wisdom, 1,2 Maccabees, Baruch, Tobit, Ecclisiasticus and Judith are the differences, and I didn't know any one of them. Funny to see that these 7 books are also guessed correctly least
I knew a couple of these but mostly because I am interested in history, not so much because I've studied the Catholic Bible. I've read the Bible pretty extensively but mostly various Protestant versions/translations.
I'm Protestant but I keep a New Jerusalem Bible for study purposes so I knew several of the books. Still I missed Wisdom, Baruch, and Ecclesiasticus, and tried to include Bel and the Dragon from the Apocrypha. What really burned me was missing Philippians. I should have known that one.
Many Catholic bible name the books differently, such as 1 Esdras = Ezra. And Revelation is also known in Catholic bibles as Apocalypse. (Once lost a pub quiz because the quizmaster only knew Apocalypse and not Revelation!)
I'm Catholic, and I've heard it called Apocalypse before, but usually not by Catholics. It's usually referred to as "Revelations" or "the Book of Revelations." It could also be a culture/area of the world thing, though.
I saw a Catholic bible with full Esdras's (as well as 3 and 4 Esdras not included here), Apocalypse and naming Joshua as "Jesus Nave". It seems this was a very exceptional bible to have gone full Greek in this way, and not like normal Catholic bibles read in churches or people's homes.
How about I saw your reply to my comment of a year ago (my god, a year!) which was posted only today! What are the chances? (Except the quiz popped up on the frequent list).
This is one of those times when you should do research before claiming something is incorrect. Maccabees is most certainly not in the new testament. It is in the old testament.
There should be a special quiz category for all of us commenters with whom the quiz master(s) disagrees and, therefore, censor(s) our comments before they're posted.
Protestants call it the Song of Solomon. Every Catholic Bible I've ever owned has called it Song of Songs, which is a closer translation of the original Hebrew (Shir ha-Shirim) than "Song of Solomon".
Ive learnt the order of the books by doing this quiz over and over again. Just looked at the comments and found out that kings and Samuels are in the wrong order. Brilliant 😡. I thought something was weird when I did the Protestant books quiz and they were the other way around. At least now I know why 🙌
AFAIK, I only saw that in the Douay-Rheims Bible, in which the verse says "For we are given up, I and my people, to be destroyed, to be slain, and to perish. And would God we were sold for bondmen and bondwomen: the evil might be borne with, and I would have mourned in silence: but now we have an enemy, whose cruelty redoundeth upon the king."
Every version of this book is full of fake bull poo, with omissions, exclusions, redactions, alterations, questionable translations, inventions, and interpolations decided on by imperfect men with their various biases and agendas. And we have no reason to believe that the original texts, should they even not be lost to us now, were in any way superior to whatever has been identified as apocryphal after the fact.
Just for the benefit of other readers of this site... I know of at least two books written by atheists trying to disprove the reliability of the Bible who, in the course of their research, found the evidence for the reliability of the Bible was overwhelming to the extent that they converted. "The Case for Christ" is perhaps the best-known example.
Just to make it clear that there is rational grounds for not taking the view given above...
The level of reliability is debatable and is different based on the book of the Bible, genre, authors, and other factors. Don't make a hasty generalization. The Bible is not one text; it is a collection of many.
Anyway, I agree that religions are based on faith. Which is why people should not be so quick to dismiss miracles.
Theodore: no campaign... and nothing nasty... just responding to a comment with relevant facts. You see it as something else because this factual information I shared provoked some defensive and emotional overreaction in yourself. Might want to reflect on why that is for a while.
Jon: if only you could see how absurd that book is in the eyes of actual non-believers. The "evidence" laid out in it is so absurdly flimsy it is impossible to believe that Strobel's story is genuine. Just... laughable. There are, however, many millions of much more believable cases of the opposite thing happening: people who studied the Bible or history looking for evidence to support their faith, or went to seminary, and became atheists. I imagine that these stories are *so* common that a handful of people, like Strobel, felt it necessary to try and offer up some counter-point for personal reasons.
QuizzerBros: exactly. realizing this (along with the realization that there is value in figuring out what is or is not a reliable path to knowledge) doesn't make you any smarter, but it does give you the tools necessary to start separating fact from fiction that most people lack, without getting defensive when your faith is called into question since your beliefs are based on a more solid foundation and not emotion or ego.
In my experience atheism (like a lot of our beliefs) is often based on emotion. Certainly most of the atheists I've known are just as emotional about their beliefs as anyone else, and many get very defensive in response to any challenge to them. Which is fine really, I'm sure that's just being human. I just get slightly narked off at the assertion that atheism is somehow more evidence-based and factual - it's just not a, er, factual idea.
I'm sure there are a lot more examples of people losing their faith after examining Biblical history or whatever (though I'm not sure how you know there are millions) but that's naturally going to be the case because most atheists naturally have never studied the faiths they reject. I've only ever met one person who understood Christianity and rejected it, although I don't doubt that there are more. But they seem to be a tiny minority.
(I've deleted my other thing which was, as you say, rubbish! I can't remember where I heard it.)
Atheism is simply a position on a single question... and usually one people are not emotional about at all. I mean... ask any of the billion or so atheists in China how emotional they get thinking about the god that they've never really heard about and I'm sure it's not very.
But... a lot of other unrelated things often get roped in together with atheism (usually by theists, but sometimes even by atheists)... such as... opposition to various organized religions... beliefs about science, skepticism, and rationality... ideas about or values connected to politics, humanism, sexuality, social justice, etc... and so on... and these are things that people do often feel very passionate or emotional about.
But I don't really think anyone is passionate about not believing in something. That would be odd and I've never seen it that I can recall.
though you have mangled what I actually said a bit... (I didn't say "atheism" was fact-based," or even mention atheism for that matter) ... I still stand by my original comment. Every version of this book is demonstrably full of the things that I listed. And this is, indeed, factual and well-documented.
.... If... this fact leads you toward atheism... well... fine.
But there are actually quite a few people who recognize the truth of the above and are still theists. Some of them even claim to believe in the same Christian or Hebrew god described in various parts of the book.
and... do you not see the irony in how many responses my comment is getting when iRDM's comment (that I'm responding to) got fewer than half as many? When you are trying to assert those who believe differently are emotional?
Is it really your well-thought out and researched position that the books that the fallible and ignorant men who collated the Protestant Bible decided to include as part of their canon are perfect and inerrant, perhaps divinely chosen... while the books that the similarly fallible and ignorant men who put together the Catholic Bible, or any other holy book, are fake and just put in to suit the beliefs of those choosing them?
Or do you have some emotional reason for wanting to believe the above (which is implied by your disagreement with what I said)?
Can you not take a step back and realize that the way you see the books of Catholics, Hindus, Muslims, Mormons... is exactly how everyone else sees your books?
I know this may be impossible for you to believe...but nobody here cares about your opinion. It's a quiz website...not your own personal blog. As you can maybe gather from the 29 upvotes on Theodore's comment and your lack of votes at all. This quiz is merely naming the books of the bible. Regardless of what is in them, the quiz is factually based. How 'bout we focus on that and wage your crusade elsewhere.
Hating them is immature, but ig your opinion is your opinion since you're not hating the jews!
Really, they don't deserve any hate. Catholicism is a rich denomination that has yielded numerous positive outcomes for the world.
Sorry to say this, but anybody who confesses Nicaea and Athanasius is Christian, so we have the same religion as them :O
Furthermore, aren't you a Christian? I think you're breaking the 'love thy neighbor' commandment with this one, and kind of mocking the Word of God with this edgy response.
So please mind your mouth, since if anybody hates our denomination, we would call it religious intolerance.
He’s not ‘imposing’ anything on you, he’s merely stating his opinion, which he’s allowed to do. Just as you have insisted that it’s ‘holy’ and worthy of respect. Personally, I don’t fell that someone’s beliefs are automatically worthy of respect. There are many people out there who ardently believe in Nazism and revere Mein Kampf as a kind of gospel. Should we give those people our respect just as automatically? Should we afford them the same courtesy as you demand. It’s their belief after all…
It’s also worth mentioning that, since you’re telling him to ‘mind his mouth,’ it would appear that the only one imposing their opinions on anyone else is you.
Thanks for saying that Jeremy's opinions don't deserve automatic respect, since they are rooted in hatred and mockery! Sorry if I seemed impolite, but asking to moderate the tone of the 'conversation' is not nazi at all.
By the way, try not to commit Reductio ad Hitleriums; they are annoying.
It took me until 2025 to memorize the Deuterocanonical books- I have read at least some of them. I've been raised Protestant, so I only learned 66 and didn't even memorize them all until last year. Protestants have the Old Testament canon as the Hebrew Bible, in case Quizmaster ever makes a Books of the Tanakh Quiz
The Book of Sirach should be included in this quiz because it offers timeless wisdom on character, decision-making, and ethical living. Its teachings bridge history, culture, and morality, giving students a deeper look at ancient Jewish thought and its influence on later religious traditions. Sirach’s practical advice on friendship, humility, parents, work, and speech also connects directly to real-life situations, making it engaging and relevant. Adding Sirach broadens students’ understanding of wisdom literature and enriches any study of biblical or historical texts. So please consider.
it never goes 1/2kings then 1/2samuel it's always 1/2samuel and then 1/2kings
How about I saw your reply to my comment of a year ago (my god, a year!) which was posted only today! What are the chances? (Except the quiz popped up on the frequent list).
Wow.
The only reason I know ANY is because this year I am in a Catholic school, where we memorize Bible verses in Spanish.
*insert thumbs up emoji here*
was quite confused near the end with some gaps in-between
Song of Solomon and Esther are the only books of the bible WITHOUT the word 'God' in them
This is not a hateful comment by Kalbahamut, silly goose.
And also, just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they hate you, Theodore.
Just to make it clear that there is rational grounds for not taking the view given above...
Anyway, I agree that religions are based on faith. Which is why people should not be so quick to dismiss miracles.
Jon: if only you could see how absurd that book is in the eyes of actual non-believers. The "evidence" laid out in it is so absurdly flimsy it is impossible to believe that Strobel's story is genuine. Just... laughable. There are, however, many millions of much more believable cases of the opposite thing happening: people who studied the Bible or history looking for evidence to support their faith, or went to seminary, and became atheists. I imagine that these stories are *so* common that a handful of people, like Strobel, felt it necessary to try and offer up some counter-point for personal reasons.
I'm sure there are a lot more examples of people losing their faith after examining Biblical history or whatever (though I'm not sure how you know there are millions) but that's naturally going to be the case because most atheists naturally have never studied the faiths they reject. I've only ever met one person who understood Christianity and rejected it, although I don't doubt that there are more. But they seem to be a tiny minority.
(I've deleted my other thing which was, as you say, rubbish! I can't remember where I heard it.)
But... a lot of other unrelated things often get roped in together with atheism (usually by theists, but sometimes even by atheists)... such as... opposition to various organized religions... beliefs about science, skepticism, and rationality... ideas about or values connected to politics, humanism, sexuality, social justice, etc... and so on... and these are things that people do often feel very passionate or emotional about.
But I don't really think anyone is passionate about not believing in something. That would be odd and I've never seen it that I can recall.
But anyway... (cont'd)
.... If... this fact leads you toward atheism... well... fine.
But there are actually quite a few people who recognize the truth of the above and are still theists. Some of them even claim to believe in the same Christian or Hebrew god described in various parts of the book.
Is it really your well-thought out and researched position that the books that the fallible and ignorant men who collated the Protestant Bible decided to include as part of their canon are perfect and inerrant, perhaps divinely chosen... while the books that the similarly fallible and ignorant men who put together the Catholic Bible, or any other holy book, are fake and just put in to suit the beliefs of those choosing them?
Or do you have some emotional reason for wanting to believe the above (which is implied by your disagreement with what I said)?
Can you not take a step back and realize that the way you see the books of Catholics, Hindus, Muslims, Mormons... is exactly how everyone else sees your books?
Hating them is immature, but ig your opinion is your opinion since you're not hating the jews!
Really, they don't deserve any hate. Catholicism is a rich denomination that has yielded numerous positive outcomes for the world.
Sorry to say this, but anybody who confesses Nicaea and Athanasius is Christian, so we have the same religion as them :O
Furthermore, aren't you a Christian? I think you're breaking the 'love thy neighbor' commandment with this one, and kind of mocking the Word of God with this edgy response.
So please mind your mouth, since if anybody hates our denomination, we would call it religious intolerance.
It’s also worth mentioning that, since you’re telling him to ‘mind his mouth,’ it would appear that the only one imposing their opinions on anyone else is you.
The main opposition to the Nazified Church leading up to and during WWII was the Confessing Church led by Dietrich Bonhoeffer
By the way, try not to commit Reductio ad Hitleriums; they are annoying.