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

[trisham]

I have the New American Bible, Catholic Companion Edition.
I also have a Revised Standard Version which was published in 1953, and belonged to my husband's great aunt (who was a Protestant) until her death.

[markomalley]

All translations are made by man.

All the manuscripts in existence, even the Dead Sea scrolls are made by man. Back in the day when the manuscripts were being reproduced, those manuscripts were reproduced by hand.

A simple look at a decent modern critical text shows the differences between manuscripts.

(Although I don't agree with many of his findings -- he was an ultrdispensationalist -- EW Bullinger did a tremendous amount of valuable work in this area. In an appendix to his Greek Concordance and Lexicon, he has a summary of many of the variations in those manuscripts. Some of the variations are quite stunning)

In of itself, that is sufficient reason not to be a sola scriptura person. We simply do not any longer have the words that God originally inspired the NT authors to write. We only have facscimiles of them. 99.99% they were accurately copied...but what if the one word that you base your doctrine on is a word that was incorrectly transcribed from the original?

[M Kehoe]

For your discussion

Indeed. Good thread [even though it is a little heated].

5.56mm

[Forest Keeper]

Thanks for the insights into your very interesting job. Love the stewardess bit. The pat-down thing reminds me of the SNL skit with Amy Poehler as an airport security guard "checking out" some good looking guy. Really funny.

[Mad Dawg]

Juvenile and Domestic relations is the court where we always have a metal detector. Kids are too immature to know what the cost to their lives of breaking bad in court would be. Adults are dealing with issues of sex and children which are pretty high-energy issues.

My trainer and buddy told me of a lady the breeze through a screaming metal detector. He tackled her at the coutroom door. Apparently her "to-do" list for that day was "Blow ex-husband away," and in her purse was a .38 special.

We always inspected cigarette packs. The metal foil sets off the detector and one could hide some scary stuff in there.

So one day we get the IQ hero of the week who had stashed his doobie in with his cigarettes -- and then was trying to deny ownership. Of course one doobie just gets you the equivalent of a traffic ticker, but it was still pretty funny.

[Mad Dawg]

RSV is pretty good I think. Their grossest error (the one I know, there may be others) is to translate porneia "immorality". NAB makes me crazy, but it's the one I use these days.

[trisham]

I'm glad to hear that. The issue regarding correct translation does concern me.

[Forest Keeper]

The people who will go to heaven are those who, based on their deeds, will be judged acceptable to God and restored to their pre-Fall state. The conditional "if you do these things..." is clear. God wants our honest cooperation with His will, even if we are capable of cooperating only imperfectly.

This is flat-out a text book definition of a works-based salvation. Salvation is based on Judgment and Judgment is based on works. I mean, I think that most other Christians would spot you that you believe God has to be involved, so I don't understand all the fuss about rejecting that description.

We must forgive in order to be forgiven. "For if you forgive others for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you." [Mat 6:14] and "But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions" [Mat 6:15]. Notice the conditional statements by our Lord.

Well, sure, but this isn't meant to be taken to the strictest meaning. No one could pass this test. This is meant to show the correct direction. The true believer will, in general, have a forgiving heart. But we don't build up "forgiveness points" or any other kind of points. Or do we?

The Gospels clearly teach that Grace is not unconditionally granted, but only unconditionally offered.

So, then grace must be earned. This matches a works-based salvation. We believe in a free grace given through God's sovereign will.

[annalex]

works-based salvation

The distinction that is important here is, Who made the works salvific in the first place. A pelagian (or some other deistic moralist) would say that the works are independent of grace. But we say that the works are salvific because of the sacrifice of Christ and the grace that outpours.

[kosta50]

This is flat-out a text book definition of a works-based salvation. Salvation is based on Judgment and Judgment is based on works

The Bible is clear: everyone will be judged based on their deeds, not beliefs. Which part don't you understand or are not willing to accept?

Kosta: "But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions" [Mat 6:15]

FK: Well, sure, but this isn't meant to be taken to the strictest meaning.

Where does it say that? The Bible is clear. Which part don't you understand or refuse to accept?

Kosta: The Gospels clearly teach that Grace is not unconditionally granted, but only unconditionally offered

FK: So, then grace must be earned. This matches a works-based salvation. We believe in a free grace given through God's sovereign will

The Bible is clear: God offers grace (pardon) to all. What we do with it is how we will be judged. God says "IF you do this, then you can count on Me." There is always the "If" and "Then" conditional clause.

There is onyl a universal offer. There is no 'granting' anything in advance. If you fulfill your part, God will fulfill His. If not, he won't either. That's His promise. Which part don't you understand or refuse to accept?

[todd1]

Scott Hahn Suggests we are exposed to Revalations throuout the entire mass. That the mass is Revalations.

[Forest Keeper]

So one day we get the IQ hero of the week who had stashed his doobie in with his cigarettes -- and then was trying to deny ownership. Of course one doobie just gets you the equivalent of a traffic ticket, but it was still pretty funny.

Maybe he was just there as a character witness for his dealer? :)

[Forest Keeper]

But we say that the works are salvific because of the sacrifice of Christ and the grace that outpours.

And we would say that if the works were salvific it would disgrace the sacrifice of Christ by demeaning it as unworthy. I suppose that among all of our camps, there are many gloves left on the gym floor over this one. :)

[Kolokotronis]

"There is onyl a universal offer. There is no 'granting' anything in advance. If you fulfill your part, God will fulfill His. If not, he won't either. That's His promise."

Last night the fig tree was one of the themes of the Bridegroom service:

"Lk 13:6-9 He spoke this parable. "A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard, and he came seeking fruit on it, and found none. He said to the vine dresser, ‘Behold, these three years I have come looking for fruit on this fig tree, and found none. Cut it down. Why does it waste the soil?’ He answered, ‘Lord, leave it alone this year also, until I dig around it, and fertilize it. If it bears fruit, fine; but if not, after that, you can cut it down.’"

Works based theosis, FK?

[Forest Keeper]

Hey, I'm back up and running again. Praise God. :) After trying to fix it myself, I spent a couple of hours on the phone with a very nice Indian gentleman in Delhi because I was sure I had a bum router. It turns out it was my cable company three blocks away! LOL!

The Bible is clear: everyone will be judged based on their deeds, not beliefs. Which part don't you understand or are not willing to accept?

Perhaps it should be noted again that our respective sides use the word "Judgment" differently. My side would agree with you that there is going to be a Judgment upon which ultimate destiny will be based. We would say this Judgment is based on things like election, grace, Christ's substitutionary work on the cross, and God's work in our lives in perseverance. We believe there is no point system for salvation. In addition, we also believe there is another judgment, one that is based on works. This "could" be equated with a point system, and will determine rewards in Heaven.

Kosta: "But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions" [Mat 6:15]

FK: Well, sure, but this isn't meant to be taken to the strictest meaning.

Where does it say that? The Bible is clear. Which part don't you understand or refuse to accept?

Since you became a Christian have you ever carried a grudge, even for a short time? Or, have you ever forgotten about a grudge that just sort of went away without your really having forgiven in your heart? If you have, then you are doomed forever under the strictest meaning.

There are many such statements in the Bible. If they are taken in the strictest sense, then no one is saved. What they are showing us is what the Christian heart is supposed to look like. We all make mistakes, and will not be perfect in meeting them every time, but we are given the bar to shoot for. I would think that the idea of theosis would be perfectly compatible with this.

The Bible is clear: God offers grace (pardon) to all. What we do with it is how we will be judged. God says "IF you do this, then you can count on Me." There is always the "If" and "Then" conditional clause.

We see all of those "if-then" statements very differently. I think you may see them as God sort of bargaining with humans, "Let's make a deal". We see them as more akin to simple statements of fact: "if a hammer falls off a table, then it will fall". Again, the point is to show the Christian what the Christian heart is supposed to look like. I see your view as being very similar to the view of those Jews who believed that following the Law was what got them into Heaven. I thought the Bible was clear that this is incorrect.

There is only a universal offer. There is no 'granting' anything in advance. If you fulfill your part, God will fulfill His. If not, he won't either. That's His promise. Which part don't you understand or refuse to accept?

If there is truly no granting of anything in advance, then grace is not free, it must be earned. This would also mean that men are able to come to God completely on their own (full Pelagianism). I don't think you believe this. :)

It is certainly a fact that most Christians believe that their own salvations are in their own hands. Unfortunately, this includes most Protestants. I used to think that, and if I now thought the Bible supported that at all, I still would. It is perfectly natural for us humans to want to be in control of ourselves and our destinies. It's how the units were built. However, consider for a moment the original sin. What was really behind it? I see a major part of it as wanting more control. They had the sweetest deal imaginable, but nope, it wasn't good enough. They wanted more control. Likewise, there are plenty of times in my life when I want to take control away from God and do things my own way. This example helps me to steer away from that.

[Forest Keeper]

"Lk 13:6-9 ..... If it bears fruit, fine; but if not, after that, you can cut it down.’"

Works based theosis, FK?

Nah. :) This is one of a hundred outward calls for repentance. This fits right in with what I am saying just above. The Christian heart repents and bears fruit. This helps us understand God's leadership in our lives. Because of these stories, when God pushes me in a certain direction I can say say "Oh yeah, I recognize that. This would be a Godly thing to do." In this story, the owner of the vineyard is God. If God wants the tree to bear fruit, then it will bear fruit. The comparison gives an appearance that the tree decides for itself whether or not it's going to bear fruit. But we know better how it really works. :)

[Kolokotronis]

“In this story, the owner of the vineyard is God. If God wants the tree to bear fruit, then it will bear fruit. The comparison gives an appearance that the tree decides for itself whether or not it’s going to bear fruit.”

Well, God is certainly the owner of the tree and He is the One Who planted it. He even arranges for it to be fertilized. But if it doesn’t bear, it will be cut down. Indeed, He tells the vine dresser to go ahead and fertilize it, when His first “impulse” was to destroy it. How does this demonstrate that it is God Who decides if the tree will bear fruit or not? None, not one, of the Fathers support your read of this verse, FK.

Apropos of your comment, you were pinged to Fr. Calivas’ commentary on the Orthros and Holy Unction service for Great and Holy Wednesday. With speciifc regard to your comments in #1096, what do you say about his comments on the Orthros for Great and Holy Wednesday?

Off to church in the snow; back later.

[annalex]

in the snow

Enough already, Lord.

[kosta50]

In addition, we also believe there is another judgment, one that is based on works. This "could" be equated with a point system, and will determine rewards in Heaven.

The Beatitudes speak of 'great rewards in heaven' but there is no indication that we shall have a caste system.

Since you became a Christian have you ever carried a grudge, even for a short time? Or, have you ever forgotten about a grudge that just sort of went away without your really having forgiven in your heart? If you have, then you are doomed forever under the strictest meaning.

That's where by "God's mercy alone are we saved" comes is. But you must try and trying is doing. We can draw the same parallel with the "Be[come] therefore perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect." Becoming (the actual Greek text is future tense) is doing, FK.

We see all of those "if-then" statements very differently. I think you may see them as God sort of bargaining with humans, "Let's make a deal"

Hardly, FK. God doesn't make deals with us. He tells us the way it is: if you do this, then I will do this. It's pretty straight foward.

I think it's funny that so many Protestants have no problems believing biblical myths, yet refuse to accept straight and umabiguous verses because they don't fit their (pseudo-Pauline) theology!

I see your view as being very similar to the view of those Jews who believed that following the Law was what got them into Heaven. I thought the Bible was clear that this is incorrect.

The Jews believe that living a virtuous life makes one acceptable to God. It is difficult to disagree with that. Judaism did not speak of heaven, but of the world to come. Not even the apocalyptic (messianic) sects (Essenes, Pahrisees) believed they will go to 'heaven'.

The Kingdom of Heaven is to be an earthly kingdom made possible by God, with messiah as its king. The messiah would be a mortal human appointed (and annointed) by God to become the King of Israel and defeat Jewish enemies. Jews do not believe they go to 'heaven'.

The Sadducees, the priestly caste in charge of the Temple, did not believe in resurrection, or angels, and their canon consisted only of the five books of Moses (the Torah).

If there is truly no granting of anything in advance, then grace is not free, it must be earned. This would also mean that men are able to come to God completely on their own (full Pelagianism). I don't think you believe this

No in both cases. Grace is pardon conditioned on repentance. We are saved by God's mercy and His mercy alone at the end of our lives. "It is appointed that man die but once and then the judgment," says +Paul. The Bible is clear that there is a condition attached to God's mercy: repentance. We cannot live perfect lives, but we must try. When we sin, we must repent, move on and "try to sin no more". Honestly try even if you honestly fail says Orthodoxy. But try in your heart you must.

[Forest Keeper]

Indeed, He tells the vine dresser to go ahead and fertilize it, when His first “impulse” was to destroy it. How does this demonstrate that it is God Who decides if the tree will bear fruit or not?

Well, if God is the owner, then this analogy would appear to have Him changing His mind, at the behest of the vine dresser. This does not actually happen, of course, it is an illustration used to make a point. (God didn't really "wonder" where Adam was in the Garden.) This was an outward call, one of many, but God maintains control. Part of the point is that God would be fully justified in destroying the tree for not bearing fruit. However, the owner is "merciful" and will give the tree another chance. The bottom line is that what the owner says, goes.

Apropos of your comment, you were pinged to Fr. Calivas’ commentary on the Orthros and Holy Unction service for Great and Holy Wednesday. With specific regard to your comments in #1096, what do you say about his comments on the Orthros for Great and Holy Wednesday?

Thanks for that ping. The following are some of his statements and my responses:

Freedom belongs to the nature and character of a human being because he has been created in the image of God.

Yes, BUT, freedom always has its limitations. Our own children have comparatively little freedom, but we say that is a good thing. Were they as free as us, many of them would destroy themselves. Likewise, we are called God's children. If we were truly in charge of our lives, we would also destroy ourselves. Every single person who demanded to be in charge, was allowed to be in charge. ALL of them either are, or will be in hell. The gulf between human adults and God is far greater than the one between children and adults. IOW, the analogy doesn't do the real truth justice. In the grand scheme, we adults are LESS able to take care of ourselves, alone spiritually, than our children are, alone physically.

Freedom is not something extraneous and accidental, but intrinsic to genuine human life. It is not a contrivance of human ingenuity and cleverness, but a divine gift.

Yes, we let our children freely play in the back yard, but not in traffic. God's gift of freedom also has limits.

Man is free, because his being has been sealed with the image of God. He has been endowed with and possesses divine qualities.

But we cannot possess these qualities to the fullness that God does. We will never be equal with our Master on any level. God gave us the ability to think and reason, but who can do so to God's level? Every attribute or quality that God has, and He shares with us, is to a lesser degree than He possesses.

The ultimate truth of man is found in his vocation to become a conscious personal existence; a god by grace.

There you go. I know that Father Calivas is NOT saying that we can achieve equality with God. Therefore, whatever he does mean is something less than God Himself. This fits my paradigm of limits.

Sin is more than breaking rules and transgressing commandments. It is the willful rejection of a personal relationship with the living God.

Yes, I agree. ...... All of us would make this willful rejection, but for the intervention of our Lord.

Sin is not just a disposition. It is a deliberate choice and an act.

Timing is everything. :)

Overall, this is a good work on which to make a comparison. I do see some things on which I can fully agree with Father Calivas, but obviously I must disagree on the extent of free will.