Catholic and Protestant Bibles: What is the Difference?

Catholic Exchange.com ^ | 02-06-07 | Mary Harwell Sayler

[Salvation]

Mary Harwell Sayler	Other Articles by Mary Harwell Sayler Printer Friendly Version
Catholic and Protestant Bibles: What is the Difference?

---

March 6, 2007

Question: What's the difference between a Catholic Bible and a Protestant one? Is our Old Testament the same as a Jewish Bible? If not, why?

Answer: The most noticeable differences occur in the number of books included and the order in which they have been arranged. Both the Jewish Bible and the Hebrew canon in a Protestant Bible (aka Old Testament) contain 39 books, whereas a Catholic Bible contains 46 books in the Old Testament. In addition, the Greek Orthodox, or Eastern Orthodox, Church accepts a few more books as canonized scripture.

To give you a quick overview of a complicated subject, here's what happened: Several hundred years before the birth of Christ, Babylonian conquerors forced the Jews to leave Jerusalem. Away from their Temple and, often, from their priests, the exiled people forgot how to read, write, and speak Hebrew. After a while, Jewish scholars wanted to make the Bible accessible again, so they translated Hebrew scriptures into the Greek language commonly spoken. Books of wisdom and histories about the period were added, too, eventually becoming so well known that Jesus and the earliest Christian writers were familiar with them. Like the original Hebrew scriptures, the Greek texts, which were known as the Septuagint, were not in a codex or book form as we're accustomed to now but were handwritten on leather or parchment scrolls and rolled up for ease in storage.

Eventually, the Jewish exiles were allowed to return to Jerusalem where they renovated the Temple. Then, in A.D. 70, warring peoples almost completely destroyed the sacred structure, which has never been rebuilt. Without this central place of worship, the Jews began looking to the Bible as their focal point of faith, but to assure the purity of that faith, only Hebrew scriptures were allowed into the Jewish canon. By then, however, the earliest Christians spoke and read Greek, so they continued to use the Septuagint or Greek version of the Bible for many centuries. After the Reformation though, some Christians decided to accept translations into Latin then English only from the Hebrew texts that the Jewish Bible contained, so the seven additional books in the Greek translation became known as the Apocrypha, meaning "hidden." Since the books themselves were no secret, the word seemed ironic or, perhaps, prophetic because, in 1947, an Arab boy searching for a lost goat found, instead, the Dead Sea scrolls, hidden in a hillside cave.

Interestingly, the leather scrolls had been carefully wrapped in linen cloth, coated in pitch, and placed in airtight pottery jars about ten inches across and two feet high where, well-preserved, they remained for many centuries. Later, other caves in the same area yielded similar finds with hundreds of manuscripts no longer hidden. Indeed, the oldest copies of the Bible now known to exist are the Dead Sea scrolls of the Septuagint.

Because of this authentic find from antiquity, many publishers in the twentieth century added back the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, First and Second Maccabees, as well as additions to Esther and Daniel. So now, when an edition of the Bible says "with Apocrypha" on the cover, the extra books from the Septuagint will usually be placed between the Old and New Testaments or at the end of the Bible. Catholic Bibles already contained those books, however, so you'll find them interwoven with other Old Testament books of history and wisdom writings. 

For the New Testament, it's a different story — and short. All of the books were written in Greek or Aramaic from the start. Although some debate occurred about which Gospels or Epistles should be included, all Christians eventually accepted all of the same 27 books in the same order. So, as long as you choose an edition that does not add explanatory notes opposed to a Catholic perspective, any reputable translation of the New Testament is fine.

 

© Copyright 2007 Catholic Exchange

[Quix]

Certainly I believe that Scripture tends way far over to the side of to be taken literally whenever remotely realistic. I think it's often BOTH literal and symbolic. But whenever there has been any probability of literal at all in historic prophecies, they have come true to the minutest literal sense.

Thanks for your kind thoughtfulness.

[FourtySeven]

While it's true some Catholics use the NIV, it's much more common to use the RSV-Catholic edition, as the same article you linked to states.

We recommend staying away from translations with unconventional renderings, such as the TEV, and suggest using the Revised Standard Version- Catholic Edition. This is a Church-approved version of the RSV that has a few, minor changes in the New Testament. It has been reissued by Ignatius Press under the title The Ignatius Bible (available from Catholic Answers in both hardcover and paperback formats).

Just making a point for clarity here. While some Catholics may use the NIV, it is not a Church approved edition. This doesn't mean we shouldn't use it, but it is best, ideally speaking, to at least be aware of the errors posted upthread.

Speaking for myself, as I came to know about the errors of the NIV, I steered away from it, even before becoming a Catholic. It actually would've been a reason to avoid Catholicism, for me, if I had found out the NIV (without the errors corrected) was also a Church approved translation.

[kosta50]

there's a sign on the door that folks are expected to at my parish. and there's a box of shawls by the door for folks who didn't come prepared... what more could they do save kicking folks out of liturgy?

That's a lot more than any other church I have seen. Kicking anyone out is not an option, but teaching forecfully the truth, even insisting on it, is.

In Serbia, half a century of communist rule corrupted even the pious, even a 1,000-year-old Christian culture. Many of the so-called "Orthodox" don't know many things, and the clergy are charged with not letting something that became corrupt continue.

Refusing communion without confession is certainly one of them. That is as close as kicking someone out of the church or liturgy as it gets. But most Orthodox churches do not insist on women being covered even during communion.

So, while your church may be a welcome exception, one cannot say the same for the rest, and I have seen many-an-Orthodox-church in my lifetime.

[kosta50]

Thank you. I will look him up.

[kosta50]

We have no precise absolute idea what Christ would say on a list of things save Holy Spirit's speaking in His still small voice to our hearts, minds, spirits

In the case of +Paul's commandment, we can. All Christian denominations will admit that Christ was speaking through him, so no individual interpretation is necessary. +Paul was not speaking in parables.

[kosta50]

The emphasis and assertion was that God only said write to Moses with the 2nd tablet or some such

Wre were talking about God actually wiritng Scriptures. What you gave me were examples of God dictating what was to be written — verbatim. That's not what "inspired" (breathed-in) means, and we agree that all Scripture is inspired. The inspiration reveals the truth to the author, who then writes it. There is a big difference between that and God commanding the scribe to write something verbatim.

I realize it has taken me the last half of my life to be able to more or less easily say "You were right. I was wrong."

I am not sure if this is supposed to be a "dig." If the correction reflects the issue, I have said on more than one occasion "I stand corrected."

The Christian thing to do is to say what you truly believe. Worrying about others, whether they can admit to being wrong, or even concering yourself with their wrong is not.

[Quix]

Having followed the growing art and science of the AUTHENTIC sorts of Bible Codes for some years now . . .

I'm inclined to agree with the Jewish contention that

GOD DICTATED LETTER BY LETTER the books of Moses.

I'm not even sure any more what this has to do with anything of substance, actually.

Glad you also can stand corrected.

[kawaii]

The 3 ROCOR parishes (and one monastary) I've been too are pretty strict about both (confession and covering).

they're all reasonably close to Jordanville though...

in Russia pants and uncovered prayer are common i'll cede (though i'd say the older parishioners seem to follow the rules). we went to a convent where they had both skirts and shawls for women though...

i'd like to see with all the reunifying a drive to get back on track with these things...

[FourtySeven]

I'm glad I read the replies to this post; I didn't quite understand your point before doing so.

Yes, I agree any "Bible Translation X-onlyism" is, generally speaking, dangerous and unwarranted, as all translations will undoubtedly have some errors. Some more than others. Some more egregious than others.

Seeking God is what's important, the "root command" so to speak (to put it in computer lingo). From this desire for God stems Faith, which from that stems salvation.

If I may share a bit about my "testimony" now, I think it has a direct impact on your post.

Curiously, my search for God has led me to the Catholic Church. I began my journey with a desire for Him, and then gained Faith in Him, and then with a continued desire to seek His full presence, His genuine presence (because there are a lot of fakes out there, no one can disagree with that), I was led to the Catholic Church. This after not only much intellectual research, but also prayer. I'd say even more prayer than research.

So, when I stand before God, and even if He asks me the question, "Why did you follow this magicsterial instead of Me?", I can say with a clear conscience, "What I believed your Holy Spirit to be, told me that He was present in this 'magicsterial'".

My conscience is and will be clear on that point. Will God condemn me for being innocently deluded, when I had tried with all my heart to not be deceived, and indeed prayed (and still pray daily) that He guide me?

I don't speak for all Catholics on this issue, but for me it's clear: I'm not CONVINCED that the Catholic Church is the true Church because of history, the Pope, my family or "tradition". I'M convinced because I believe what I perceive to be the Holy Spirit has guided me here. And yes, I've tested this spirit in every way Scripture exhorts. To the best of my ability.

So what we have here I guess is that either I'm listening to a false spirit, or others who claim to have the Holy Spirit, are listening to a false spirit. But does it matter?

As long as I claim to be led by the Holy Spirit, I'm ok, aren't I? In God's Eyes?

[fortheDeclaration]

Yes, and if you reject this 'second best' which God gave because of man's sin, then you are twice damned! Thank you for your judgment. I will, however, defer to the real Judge.

Well, that was what, Chrysostom said, whom you cited.

2. Reflect then how great an evil it is for us, who ought to live so purely as not even to need written words, but to yield up our hearts, as books, to the Spirit; now that we have lost that honor, and are come to have need of these, to fail again in duly employing even this second remedy. For if it be a blame to stand in need of written words, and not to have brought down on ourselves the grace of the Spirit; consider how heavy the charge of not choosing to profit even after this assistance, but rather treating what is written with neglect, as if it were cast forth without purpose, and at random, and so bringing down upon ourselves our punishment with increase.6 But that no such effect may ensue, let us give strict heed unto the things that are written; and let us learn how the Old Law was given on the one hand, how on the other the New Covenant.

let us give strict heed unto the things that are written And those would be...? This whole thread is about man-made decisions what are and aren't supposed to be Scriptures.

Once again, turn to your Church Father and see that he lists the Old Law and the New Covenant.

Now where in that discourse by Chrysostom, do you see anything that refers to the Scriptures as being 'man-made'.

. By whom Matthew also, being filled with the Spirit,

[nanetteclaret]

You said, "My Bible is different." So how long did it take you to find a translation that agrees with your point?

Which translation is literal? There is a vast difference between your version (modern) and mine (1611).

[Lil Flower]

Your comment about the homily did nothing to address what I posted about all the Scriptures that are read during Mass.

And the central part of Mass is the worship of Jesus Christ, not what a preacher thinks a particular passage means.

[kawaii]

why not go back to the greek originals 33ad-200ish ad?

[blue-duncan]

What good is a reading of scripture without a knowledge of what the scripture means? And what benefit is there in "worshipping" without a knowledge of who and why you are worshipping? That is the reason for the preaching and teaching offices in the churches. 1 Cor. 14:15, "What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also." Understanding comes from teaching, not superstitous repeating of words or actions one does not understand.

[kosta50]

GOD DICTATED LETTER BY LETTER the books of Moses

And Mohammad claimed Allah dictated the Koran to Him word-by-word.

That's not "inspired."

[kosta50]

Monasteries are orthodox in praxis as well as in beliefs. No argument there.

[kosta50]

Well, that was what, Chrysostom said, whom you cited.

He said "but rather treating what is written with neglect, as if it were cast forth without purpose, and at random." I never said there was no purpose to scriptures or that they were generated "at random." But it wasn't his to pronounce judgment either.

[Forest Keeper]

... so I don't think I will detail that we do not forget that God is behind the actions of man. Any saint will realize that - that they are humble and can do nothing of good without God (cf John 15).

Yes, I didn't mean to sound like I thought that any of you (as you said) over-exaggerated all the way to that side. That would be my understanding of full blown Pelagianism, and I don't think I've met anyone on FR warranting that description.

[AlaninSA]

Perhaps things are different at your church - one of the, what, million protestant sects?

However, the snake handling pentacostal calvinist wannabeatelevangelist "churches" here typically only use snippets.

[ScubieNuc]

And Mohammad claimed Allah dictated the Koran to Him word-by-word.

I am curious why you keep bringing up Mohammad? I think we would both agree that Mohammad was either lieing or being misled by demonic forces. What exactly are you implying to Quix?

The reason I ask, is because I have seen here on FR, other Orthodox claim Protostants are not following the Holy Spirit, but rather demons like Mohammad.

Sincerely