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

[Forest Keeper]

[Bishops] must devote their lives entirely to the Church, which is why most Bishops are drawn from monastic ranks, but some widowers have been elevated to that rank.

Thanks for the info.

[Forest Keeper]

We are not arguing over not sinning, but over assuredness of election. Clearly the author doesn't think it is as assured but says it can be assured by works.

[Assuming we are still talking about 2 Pet. 1] No. Peter does not say theosis/salvation ITSELF is assured by works, rather he says that the believer can know what is already assured in fact. It appears you are zooming in on verse 10 :

2 Peter 1:9-13 : 9 But if anyone does not have [the earlier listed good traits/deeds], he is nearsighted and blind, and has forgotten that he has been cleansed from his past sins. 10 Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure. For if you do these things, you will never fall, 11 and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. 12 So I will always remind you of these things, even though you know them and are firmly established in the truth you now have. 13 I think it is right to refresh your memory as long as I live in the tent of this body, ...

Verse 9 says "he has been cleansed", past tense, already done for all time in accordance with God's other promises in scripture. He is saying the believer can "forget" this, which is true. Not all believers "remember" the fact of their salvation. Doing works DOES help those believers to "remember", and in any event doing good works grows the faith of the believer. Verse 10 obviously builds on verse 9, "do good works to avoid being one of those who has forgotten that he has already been cleansed". Verse 12 further confirms the idea. Peter knows that we are easily forgetful (how true!) so he will remind us even though we should already know better. How many times do we need to be reminded of simple Biblical truths. Speaking for myself, PLENTY. :) At the beginning I used to wonder why there was so much relative repetition in the Bible. I wonder no longer. :)

[Forest Keeper]

... well in practice it's happened whether knowingly or not...

From this and the answers of your fellow Orthodox, I'll assume that it's never SUPPOSED to happen knowingly. :) Thanks for your reply.

[fortheDeclaration]

If Constantine had stacked the Nicea council with Arians would we be expected to blindly follow the edicts of this ecumenical council? No, because SCRIPTURE clearly indicates they are wrong.

That is why the only thing a creed is good for is to help children learn what the scriptures teach on a particular area, they were never meant to be a substitute for the scriptures and one needs to read the scriptures in their context to make sure they are in fact saying what the Creed says they are.

[kosta50]

Likewise, our testimonials to one another may also be used by the Holy Spirit to supernaturally communicate to our human spirit His revealed word

You chose your words wisely, the emphasis being on "may."

Claiming indwelling Holy Spirit or some divine presence or guidance within us is an esoteric statement which, whether subjective or objective, ends any discussion because it can either be a prior accepted or rejected.

[kosta50]

a prior=a priori

[kosta50]

But I do want to ask you the question I posed earlier to anyone interested: Who do you believe?

Who is who?

[kosta50]

I know a number of English teachers and fellow psychologists at my college who'd shake their heads in disbelief at that thoroughly inaccurate assertion!

In college, I used to have English professors.

For a psychologist, or whatever you claim to be, you ought to know that a "personality" is a sum total of more than one factor. To say that a perosanlity is an amalgam of different elements is not the same as saying there are mutiple personalities.

[Mad Dawg]

Sweatiest movie ever. :)

Got me laughing here!

Some of the cooler prisoners that I have transported could play with movies and cultural icons of prisoners and cops. We could crack each other up. You know, like a prisoner when we offer to get him something from the McCholesterol's restaurant saying,"GO ahead. Make my lunch!" in a Clint Eastwood voice.

[Cvengr]

If a common denominator exists between us, then it isn't an esoteric statement.

Furthermore it isn't hidden, because His WORD also reveals His indwelling to us.

[Quix]

At the Jr College I currently teach at, "professor" is sort of considered a bit ostentacious. It's used but not as often.

In terms of personality, the FACT remains that a given person's personality is ONE personality. You asserted, insisted that the term was inherently plural. It is not. Yes, many factors, dimensions, traits in one personality exist. It is still one person's singular personality.

I'd have thought that you'd have known that. Maybe you did and just got in a different mode of construing it for some obtuse reason. A very human thing to do that we've all likely done from time to time.

[Kitty Mittens]

Thank you All for Everything I Learn, and All the Blessings, as I Lurk and Admire your Wisdom and Gifts from our Christ.

[kosta50]

Your judgments are dramatic and bombastic and that's just about it. A "normal" baby will react predictably. How many times has it happened that by mistake a mother was handed a wrong baby, even walked out of the hospital with it, without being able to tell it's her baby?

And in your vast experience, can you tell if a baby is going to be an antisocial personality, a criminal, a doctor, a psychologist; if he or she will be selfish, religious, etc.? I don't think so. By the way, there is as uch disagreement among psychologists when it comnes to personality issues as there are Protestant sects.

The fact is that if you take a child, put him in the back yard, feed him and give him water and never interact with him, he will be an animal lacking in language and social graces. Everything we are, which makes us human, is learned. How fast and how much we learn depends on many factors, including our physiological makup, genetics (obviously if you are born deaf or blind hearing and seeing will not be major determinants, at least the extrinsic ones), culture, upbrining, nutrition, etc.

What we become in life has to do with our potential, opportunity and being in the right place at the right time. Some perosnality types do better in certain jobs. Some personality types are more successful within a given society for explicable reasons.

Brain damage due to various factors (infections, alcohol, drugs) can pretty much erase those spurious 50% of personality traits you claim at conception and make them as good as if they never were there.

The only thing we know is that human life begins at human conception by the union of two living cells carrying certain amount of genetic material (usually haploid) that fuse. What that human will be like is anyone's guess and cannot be determined by any science or superstitious belief with any certainty.

[kosta50]

If a common denominator exists between us, then it isn't an esoteric statement

But that applies to all religious groups. It doesn't prove anything. Like minds are confused with 'proof.'

Furthermore it isn't hidden, because His WORD also reveals His indwelling to us

The Jews reject our NT the way Christians reject the Book of Mormons. The Muslims are convinced with all sincerity that the complete revelation of God is in OT, Christ and the Koran.

We determine what is true to us. Then we clothe it with esoteric divinity. To us, individually, it may be "objective" but trying to prove it beyond that is futile.

[kosta50]

When I think of the term "dying to self" I think of extinguishing the sinful nature and of having TOTAL allegiance to God, not to self

Not just allegience, but total devotion. In hevanly "time" we could say 24/7/365. It's not that we have allegience to oursleves, it's that most of our life we are devoted to ourselves, to the me, my needs, my wants, my taste, etc.

If we are going to love our neighbor as ourselves, there will be no "me," but "us" and that is hardly conducive to individualistic egocentric existence we lead today.

[kosta50]

Kosta: Do you have a biblical reference to that claim?

Quix: 1 Crinthians 13:12 KJV

You are making me laugh. Is this desperation? You are using the verse out of context. Nice try. Trouble is, it has nothing to do with personalities. It has to do with our 'what we know.' Obviously, when we die, we will 'know' something we don't know now or will know more. But to tie this to keeping earhtly personalities (or anything worldly for that matter!) is pathetic.

Let's just admit that the statement I don't know if we'll have the same earthly personality but we'll certainly be recognizable by our friends and family who are there [my emphasis added] is not biblical. So much for sola scriptura feel-good myth that all doctrine is derived from the scriptures.

[kosta50]

It appears you are zooming in on verse 10

Actually 10 and 11. The two go hand-in-hand. They are part of one sentence (remember that verse nuimbeirng is man-made and that it was done for ease of reference only). The sentence reads:

"For if you do these things, you will never fall, and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ."

Clearly, he is associating the works with receiving a "rich welcome" into Christ's kimgdom. The conditional nature of his statement is clearly makred with the word is if.

If is not a guarantee. Yes, we have bene cleansed, but if

[kosta50]

The conditional nature of his statement is clearly makred with the word is if.

darn keyboard! the last paragraph reads:

Yes, we have bene cleansed, but if we do things that will make us forget about God, negflect our cleanliness, we should not expect "rich welcome."

[Cvengr]

I agree that attempting to prove the truth of the Gospel, independent of any frame of reference is fruitless, but that also manifests a weakness in rationalism.

The veracity of God is available to all in any domain. It really doesn't matter how many comparative religions don't believe in God through faith in Christ. That will never over power Him.

[kosta50]

I agree that attempting to prove the truth of the Gospel, independent of any frame of reference is fruitless, but that also manifests a weakness in rationalism

Of course. We are finite beings, with finite linguistic and conceptual endowment. Does an American bee "know" it is in America? Realizing our weakness, our limitations, our "bee-ness" increases our awareness of God's immensity and incomprehensability. Realizing that we only know that we don't know is a giant step theologically speaking and a true lesson in humility.

It really doesn't matter how many comparative religions don't believe in God through faith in Christ. That will never over power Him It's an esoteric conviction. Not a proof.