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

[Kolokotronis]

“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.”

FK, do you believe in the Final Judgment? The Particular Judgment?

[Forest Keeper]

FK: "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." (emphasis added)

YES, YES, YES! :) This is all I meant by not taking a passage to its literal and strictest sense. It is unattainable, but it points us in the Godly direction.

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 forward.

But, ............. that's what a deal IS. :)

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

I think if we are both honest we say that ALL sides accept certain scriptures at literal face value and interpret others. In our cases, they just happen to be different scriptures. :) But, I do happen to think that Reformers take the straight line meaning MUCH more often than do the Apostolics.

The Jews believe that living a virtuous life makes one acceptable to God. It is difficult to disagree with that.

I've just erased my third different answer to this. Maybe that should be my answer. :)

Judaism did not speak of heaven, but of the world to come. Not even the apocalyptic (messianic) sects (Essenes, Pharisees) believed they will go to 'heaven'.

The Jews certainly believed in the resurrection of the dead and an afterlife. I don't understand the distinction you're drawing. Most of them "may" not have had the same conception of Heaven that we have, but so what? They did know that physical death was not the end.

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 anointed) by God to become the King of Israel and defeat Jewish enemies. Jews do not believe they go to 'heaven'.

Aside from the "mortal" part, isn't this sort of like "New Jerusalem"?

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).

That's fine, but I don't think this reflects the beliefs of the "average" OT Jew.

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.

The Bible is clear that there must be repentance for there to be salvation. That is very different from what you said. Technically, our belief is that "God's mercy" comes before repentance, since we cannot repent without it (grace).

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.

No argument here, these are words to live by.

[kosta50]

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"

Kosta: 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 forward

FK: But, ............. that's what a deal IS

No, FK, it's a promise.

I think if we are both honest we say that ALL sides accept certain scriptures at literal face value and interpret others

Of course. The Genesis, for example, is understood allegorically.

But, I do happen to think that Reformers take the straight line meaning MUCH more often than do the Apostolics

It seems that way.

Kosta: The Jews believe that living a virtuous life makes one acceptable to God. It is difficult to disagree with that

FK: I've just erased my third different answer to this. Maybe that should be my answer

Perhaps because you can't bring yourself to admit that in your heart it rings true?

The Jews certainly believed in the resurrection of the dead and an afterlife

The belief in resurrection coincides with the appearance of messianic beliefs and political sects (Pharisees, Essenes) in the neighborhood of about 200 years before Christ.

The reason why the Jews of today believe in resurrection is because modern-day rabbinical Judaism is Pharisaical. The other two major sects (Sadducees and Essenes) died out bu the end of the 1st century AD.

Kosta: 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)

FK: That's fine, but I don't think this reflects the beliefs of the "average" OT Jew

There is no such thing as an "average" OT Jew. Judaism was made up of different sects which believed different things and used different canon.

Today people assume that Judaism was monolithic, as it is today (as least as far as theology is concerned). That's not the case. No one could claim monopoly on Judaism.

After the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, the only sect that survived were the anti-Chrisitian Pharisees who morphed into rabbinical Judaism.

A similar fate befell the Christians. Of various Christian groups, the orthodox branch of Irenaeus survived (until the 16th century).

Technically, our belief is that "God's mercy" comes before repentance, since we cannot repent without it (grace)

God offers a conditional clemency to all who are willing to come to Him. The condition is: Baptism. We don't deserve the pardon, we can't earn it or buy it.

God does it out of love because we inherit the fallen state from our ancestral parents at no fault of our own. So, God's acceptance is purely an act of mercy. But, I reiterate, it is not unconditionl.

Once restored to grace, God again conditions His pardon by making our repentance the key to His forgiveness of sins that we have committed willingly, while under grace.

But if you subscribe to the pseudo-Paulean doctrine of atonement, and believe that Christ paid all your bills, past, present and future, and you are free of any obligation, then repentance and personal responsibility that comes with it become secondary.

You cover yourself with the "white sheet" and say "my sins are already forgiven," which makes repentance meaningless. God did not die on the cross so that we can be free to sin (as Luther suggests), but so that we may be saved by repenting of them.

We have to ask before we are forgiven. It's cooperating with God's rules and God's will.

[annalex]

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.

The point made by this parable is indeed that to God belong both justice and mercy; but the parable also indicates that just as the tree grows or doesn't grow by itself, likewise man has free will. The point of God not knowing where Adam was is, of course none other but to explain to us that God did not program Adam to hide.

[Kolokotronis]

“The point of God not knowing where Adam was is, of course none other but to explain to us that God did not program Adam to hide.”

Very good, Alex! :)

[Forest Keeper]

FK, do you believe in the Final Judgment? The Particular Judgment?

From what I understand of it, I would say that I do not believe in the Particular Judgment as I understand it is used by Catholics, and perhaps, the Orthodox(?). From what I read a person is immediately judged after death and his lifetime works are considered in determining his ultimate destiny. In addition, the decision is made to send those who need it, to purgatory. I don't agree with either of these. However, I do believe there will be another judgment in which Heavenly rewards are given out, based on works. Wiki called that a "particular judgment", but of course it is completely different from the term the Catholics use.

I do believe in the Final Judgment. After every knee has bowed, the saved and the damned will be separated forever.

[Forest Keeper]

The Genesis, for example, is understood allegorically.

Not to me. :) For one thing, Luke includes Adam matter-of-factly in his chapter 3 lineage. So does Paul in several places, such as Rom. 5:14; 1 Cor. 15:22, 45; 1 Tim 2:13-14. Same thing in Jude 1:14. There are also plenty of references in the OT. It just seems the rest of the Bible treats Adam being the first man as a literal statement.

God offers a conditional clemency to all who are willing to come to Him. The condition is: Baptism. We don't deserve the pardon, we can't earn it or buy it. ....... Once restored to grace, God again conditions His pardon by making our repentance the key to His forgiveness of sins that we have committed willingly, while under grace.

I don't agree that God's gift can be "free", yet have significant strings. When Paul says in 1 Cor 6:19-20: "... You are not your own ; 20 you were bought at a price. ..." he cannot actually mean "bought and paid for". He must really mean "leased" with an option to buy based on performance. :) I think Jesus' effort was greater than that.

But if you subscribe to the pseudo-Paulean doctrine of atonement, and believe that Christ paid all your bills, past, present and future, and you are free of any obligation, then repentance and personal responsibility that comes with it become secondary.

Christ did pay all the bills of His elect. However, in no way does that free us from any obligation. That is the plain meaning of OSAS, and is wrong. We absolutely must do good works and WILL do them. We will want to with the new heart God has given us. He only gives His children the best. What do you make of the passage:?

Ezek 36:26-27 : 26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.

God chose not to transform us into sinless beings during physical life, but He makes clear that He will move us. Either God's "moving" means "gives suggestions" or it refers to actual action by God, in which He cannot fail to achieve His goals.

You cover yourself with the "white sheet" and say "my sins are already forgiven," which makes repentance meaningless.

Not at all. It just means that our repentance is not due to our inner wonderfulness. Repentance comes from God. God causes all believers to repent by giving them a new heart.

God did not die on the cross so that we can be free to sin (as Luther suggests), but so that we may be saved by repenting of them.

It's interesting that the only ones in the world who believe that about Luther strongly disagree with him. It's OK, we who believe in many of his teachings know he never suggested or thought anything like that. ...... And again, I disagree that Jesus' death was only worth giving everyone a shot at salvation. I don't see God as One who only goes half-way on the big stuff.

[kosta50]

Not to me. :) For one thing, Luke includes Adam matter-of-factly in his chapter 3 lineage. So does Paul in several places, such as Rom. 5:14; 1 Cor. 15:22, 45; 1 Tim 2:13-14. Same thing in Jude 1:14. There are also plenty of references in the OT. It just seems the rest of the Bible treats Adam being the first man as a literal statement

Certainly it does. Who could have imagined that mankind wasn't really created that way? The ways of God are quite different than out imagination. They also believed the earth rested on four pillars, and the Bible also says that the Sun and the Moon stood still.

Archeological evidence does not support the story of Genesis, plain and simple.

I don't agree that God's gift can be "free", yet have significant strings

But later on you say Christ did pay all the bills of His elect. However, in no way does that free us from any obligation. Sounds like you do believe God atttaches his 'free" gift to significant strings, FK' you just like to disagree with me. :)

God chose not to transform us into sinless beings during physical life

Then why would He say "I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws" (as you quote in Eze 36)? He doesn't say "more or less." He does expect us to be sinless once we receive a new heart and once we are under His grace. We choose not to be! The way Hebrews chose idols and finally perverted the Old Covenant.

[Forest Keeper]

The point of God not knowing where Adam was is, of course none other but to explain to us that God did not program Adam to hide.

I think it means more than that, but what you say IS consistent with the passage. The act of attempted hiding from God is itself sin, and God does not program anyone to commit sin. Gen. 3:8-10 also shows us that shame comes from sin, and that it is futile to try to hide from God.

[kosta50]

The act of attempted hiding from God is itself sin, and God does not program anyone to commit sin. Gen. 3:8-10 also shows us that shame comes from sin, and that it is futile to try to hide from God

Then to sin is our choice. And to repent isn't?

According to Protestant theology, repentance is God-given. That means Adam did not repent because God didn't want him to repent.

In other words, God is behind Adam's pride. Don't you see, FK, this theology puts the blame on God and not on man?

[annalex]

the rest of the Bible treats Adam being the first man as a literal statement.

This is also a de fide doctrine of the Catholic Church: Adam and Eve were historical humans, from whom we all descend in genetic and not allegorical sense.

A Catholic MAY opt to combine this with a believe in theistic evolution of humans, and construct a theory whereby apes evolve to a certain point at which God selects two apes and breathes a soul into them. However, whatever the mechanism of the creation of man is presumed, the biological paretnhood of Adam and Eve is a dogmatic belief.

14 But death reigned from Adam unto Moses, even over them also who have not sinned after the similitude of the transgression of Adam, who is a figure of him who was to come. [...] 18 Therefore, as by the offence of one, unto all men to condemnation; so also by the justice of one, unto all men to justification of life. 19 For as by the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners; so also by the obedience of one, many shall be made just

(Romans 5)

[kosta50]

This is also a de fide doctrine of the Catholic Church: Adam and Eve were historical humans, from whom we all descend in genetic and not allegorical sense. A Catholic MAY opt to combine this with a believe in theistic evolution of humans, and construct a theory whereby apes evolve to a certain point at which God selects two apes and breathes a soul into them. However, whatever the mechanism of the creation of man is presumed, the biological paretnhood of Adam and Eve is a dogmatic belief.

That is reasonable. Once the souls were breathed into the creatures, they became human at that moment. But the Bible tells us they were made from "scratch."

[annalex]

But the Bible tells us they were made from "scratch."

I, basically, think that macroevolution (from species to species) is a hoax. But if one wishes to believe it, one can read the account of the creation of man form mud as an evolutionary process, that involved many steps whereby God created man from inanimate matter.

[kosta50]

Like I said, in the context as you describe it, I have no problems with Genesis. I never thought there was a conflict between science and faith, and still don’t. But the reversed order of the account of creation shows that the authors had a divine inkling of the turth, but not necessarily the sequence.

[ladyinred]

sn't it peculiar how Protestants desire the Catholic religion to be invalidated, as if that would somehow validate their religion?

Guess what? I do not seek to invalidate your religion, I believe you are Christians. Would your religion say the same about Protestants however?

[jacknhoo]

Of course the Catholic Church knows the protestant religion is a Christian religion.

[Forest Keeper]

Who could have imagined that mankind wasn't really created that way [according to Genesis]? The ways of God are quite different than out imagination. They also believed the earth rested on four pillars, and the Bible also says that the Sun and the Moon stood still.

People have wrongly interpreted forever. I see a difference between misinterpreting a single verse, and misinterpreting the substance of a whole book.

Archaeological evidence does not support the story of Genesis, plain and simple.

If you're talking about young earth vs. old earth, Harley has already shown that "old earth" does not defeat the exact account in Genesis. There is at least one unknown gap that could have encompassed any amount of time. Does anything else in man's 2007 version of archeology "defeat" Genesis? I mean, man's 21st century archeology has already given us all the ossuary and tomb evidence showing us brand new revelations about Christ. :)

FK: "I don't agree that God's gift can be "free", yet have significant strings."

But later on you say "Christ did pay all the bills of His elect. However, in no way does that free us from any obligation." Sounds like you do believe God attaches his 'free" gift to significant strings, FK' you just like to disagree with me. :)

No, no, although I enjoy that too! :) In your case, you mean people using their free wills to fulfill the obligation, on penalty of losing salvation/theosis. In my case I mean that the obligation is placed by God, and will be ACCOMPLISHED by God, with no risk of losing salvation. God never fails. The responsibility for the obligation is on different entities. In our human experience, we "feel" and are aware of the "obligation" to do good because that is what our new heart tells us. Theologically, it is God Who does all of the fulfilling. We participate and are blessed by it.

FK: "God chose not to transform us into sinless beings during physical life."

Then why would He say "I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws" (as you quote in Eze 36)? He doesn't say "more or less."

He doesn't say "without error by you or me" either. The statement, by itself, it absolutely correct. We know that even the most faithful still sin from time to time.

He does expect us to be sinless once we receive a new heart and once we are under His grace. We choose not to be!

Yes, we choose to turn away in sin. No question about it. That is free will. But once we are under His saving grace, then it would be up to Him to remove it or not. He promises that He will not for His elect. I'm not exactly sure how to address what His "expectations" are, since He already knows, etc. Maybe it's related to the outward vs. inward calling thing.

[kosta50]

People have wrongly interpreted forever. I see a difference between misinterpreting a single verse, and misinterpreting the substance of a whole book

Very true, FK. I have been professing that for ever.

Does anything else in man's 2007 version of archeology "defeat" Genesis? I mean, man's 21st century archeology has already given us all the ossuary and tomb evidence showing us brand new revelations about Christ. :)

It's not old earth/new earth, FK. The oldest human remains hardly match Adam and Eve. The dinsaurs contradict at least one version of Genesis (the one that has animals created after man), etc.

we "feel" and are aware of the "obligation" to do good because that is what our new heart tells us. Theologically, it is God Who does all of the fulfilling. We participate and are blessed by it.

That goes back to being robots, FK. But we already know the Reformed think they are a bunch of robots, although they must have been programmed to deny it.

He doesn't say "without error by you or me" either. The statement, by itself, it absolutely correct. We know that even the most faithful still sin from time to time

Oh yeah? Then why does He say "Go and sin no more"? Or "Be therefore perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect"?

Or when he says "sell all you have and follow Me..." Is that a figure of speech? I don't think so. It's a call to righteousness and most of us can't handle it. So we find excuses. That's why +Paul is so popular among Protestants. He doesn't require you to do anything; just believe and wait for your turn to go up.

[Forest Keeper]

Then to sin is our choice. And to repent isn't?

We need no help at all to sin, so that is "closer" to the normal human idea of free will choice.

According to Protestant theology, repentance is God-given. That means Adam did not repent because God didn't want him to repent.

Perhaps not immediately, but I thought we both think he repented LATER. I would say he received saving grace later. As I understand your belief, Jesus went and snatched him out of Hades, thus proving that Adam did repent at some point. That was just a timing issue for God's purposes. Once the sin was committed though, the deed was done and could not have been undone, as if it never happened. At that instant, he needed saving, regardless of when he repented (assuming he was saved).

In other words, God is behind Adam's pride. Don't you see, FK, this theology puts the blame on God and not on man?

God is behind God's plan, not Adam's pride. God had His reasons for delaying the inevitable. He does the same with many of His elect, since many are not saved at the instant we reach the age of reason (like me). This is perfectly normal and common.

[kosta50]

We need no help at all to sin, so that is "closer" to the normal human idea of free will choice

To repent is a choice. There is no such thing as "natural" human behavior. Everything men does is learned.

As I understand your belief, Jesus went and snatched him out of Hades, thus proving that Adam did repent at some point

I don't see why He would have done that. I don't believe it. That's for sure.

Once the sin was committed though, the deed was done and could not have been undone

The Christian teaching is that by repentance the sins are forgiven, committed to oblivion, which is as good as if they never happened (great is God's mercy).

God is behind God's plan, not Adam's pride

But if God is sovereign and doesn't allow free will then Adam's pride is not his pride but part of God's will and plan. Then why would Adam be punished? For obedience?