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

[wmfights]

I was afraid it might be to abstract. :-(

[kosta50]

THAT'S HARDLY SCRIPTURE????

Maybe you'd better tell God. He seems to have a different opinion about it

Oh, God already knows what I think. Scriptures were written by humans inspired (filled) by God's truth. The Tablets were written by God. They are not inspired. God did not have to be inspired. He is the one Who inspires! :)

[Kolokotronis]

Do you think that mankind, as a whole, is ready for that, Quix? Perhaps just the elect?

[kosta50]

I was afraid it might be to abstract. :-(

The only "abstraction" are the mysterious "scriptures" these Greeks were reading in order to QA what +Paul was teaching about Christ. For sure, they were not Gospels.

[jo kus]

Instead of quoting theologians attempting to promote their particular sects doctrines why not quote Scripture? Where does it say in Scripture that man made traditions should have more importance than the inspired Word of God?

They shouldn't. However, traditions CAN be based upon what is found in Scriptures - or what is interpreted to be what the Scriptures say. Thus, you should take that into account when you attack Catholic or Orthodox "traditions". Remember, we interpret the Scriptures differently. We have a different paradigm, a different approach to particular topics. Thus, we Catholic/Orthodox say that Apostolic Traditions are ALSO from God. They share the same source, God Himself.

Regards

[jo kus]

Macabbee's is part of the Apocrapha which are also called the Deuterocanonical Books. Here is a site which has a good discussion on why Protestants don't have the Apocrypha as part of their Bibles.

This site has the same old tired arguments that are quite simply refuted, even by a simpleton like myself.

For example, the circular argument that "Maccabees teaches prayers for the dead" - and we all know that prayers for the dead "make void the sacrifice of Christ on the cross"...

What is painfully obvious is that the FIRST Christians did not consider this a problem because they didn't think that "prayers for the dead" nullified ANYTHING Christ did. The problem is with the Protestant paradigm. Prayers for the LIVING OR THE DEAD are effective ONLY because of the sacrifice of Christ!

As to the rest, if we based determination of the Canon on the flimsy requirements given, we'd have to throw out a lot more than just the books "those Catholics of Trent added". For example, since God can't possibly teach morality through a fiction story (sarcasm, of course), we must get rid of Judith and Tobit - but retain Esther and the parables of Christ???

Or they "don't sound like Scriptures"? Is that a preconceived notion being reached? One comes to the table with his 66 books listed - and everything else becomes void because "they don't sound right to me"? Is there a possibility that some people are forgetting that we do not make God in our image, but that God has revealed Himself to us???

Accept what we have received. Stop making excuses for removing Scriptures from the canon because they don't fit your preconceived notions of theology.

Regards

[Kolokotronis]

"We have a different paradigm, a different approach to particular topics. Thus, we Catholic/Orthodox say that Apostolic Traditions are ALSO from God. They share the same source, God Himself."

"Those of us who wish to go out of Egypt, and to fly from Pharaoh, certainly need some Moses as a mediator with God and from God, who, standing between action and divine vision, will raise hands of prayer for us to God, so that guided by him we may cross the sea of sin and rout the Amalek of the passions. That is why those who have surrendered themselves to God deceive themselves if they suppose that they have no need of a director. Those who came out of Egypt had Moses as their guide, and those who fled from Sodom had an angel. The former are like those who are healed of the passions of the soul by the care of physicians; these are they who come out of Egypt. The latter are like those who long to put off the uncleanness of the wretched body. That is why they need a helper, an angel, so to speak, or rather, one equal to an angel. For in accordance with the corruption of our wounds, we need a director who is indeed an expert and a physician."

+John Climacus; Step 1, The Ladder of Divine Ascent

[ScubieNuc]

Hey jo,

It's been along time since I've bumped into you. Your post to me gave me a chuckle. Mainly because you call yourself a simpleton. Nobody who has read any of your posts would put that label onto you.

I'm not going to waste bandwidth going round and round with you again over the same old path getting nowhere. I posted one website that did a good job of laying out in layman's terms the reasons Protestants don't accept the Apocrypha as Scripture. You don't accept that. Fine, I understand.

Your reasonings don't convince me, so I guess I just have to remain a heretic in your eyes awhile longer.

Have a good night Brother,

Sincerely

[Forest Keeper]

Christians cannot escape it - God has decided to allow men to participate in His salvation plan. There is no use in getting upset over this. Sacred Scripture says as much in Psalm 8. The majority of Christians do not take such a dark view towards humans as you do.

Participation - yes, but running the show - no. I think that pissant just happened to (quite unintentionally) push all my buttons on this topic. :) You know that I always bristle when the FIRST credit is given to man, and that is the way I read pissant's post. In this light, Psalm 8 is an excellent example of what I mean:

Ps 8 1 ... O Lord, our Lord,how majestic is your name ...... You have set ...... 2 ... you have ordained praise ... 3 ... the work of your fingers, ...... which you have set in place, 4 what is man that you are mindful of him, ...... you care for him? 5 You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor. 6 You made him ruler over the works of your hands; you put everything under his feet: ...... 9 O Lord, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth!

Yes, God ordained that men rule over the lands and His other creatures, just as He ordained that I "rule" in my household. But none of this is absolute, since God owns everything. All is subject to God's ultimate will. I just think the focus should always be on where any (lent) power or authority comes from. To me, the focus of Psalm 8 is clearly and correctly on God, not man.

Whatever "dark" view of humans I have is an acknowledgment of my dependence on God. For without God, men are indeed "dark". They seek the darkness and will never come to the light on their own. That's why I'm so obsessive about where all the "credit" should go. :)

[kosta50]

Goodness. I'm beginning to think we are in different galactic...There's at least one case in the New Testament. I won't look up that ref.

There is more than one example in the NT (Revelation) where God goes back to dictating. But that's not inspired writing. That's commandment.

If you believe God dictated the scriptures, word-by-word, consider what Mohammad had to say about the Koran.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Should have been more clear. Those whom take many things literally can't seem to find it in them to take the portion about women literally.

[blue-duncan]

"When the Fathers were writing, there were no Baptists"

That's because they were "Desert" fathers. The early church "Baptist" fathers were not writing fathers but baptizing fathers and lived by the sea, lakes or ponds, so obviously the "Desert" fathers would not have heard of them.

[Kolokotronis]

"That's because they were "Desert" fathers. The early church "Baptist" fathers were not writing fathers but baptizing fathers and lived by the sea, lakes or ponds, so obviously the "Desert" fathers would not have heard of them."

LOL! What about the Oasis Desert Fathers?

[blue-duncan]

"What about the Oasis Desert Fathers"

Did they baptize only believers by immersion? Probably not seeing that would muddy the drinking water or worse.

[Kolokotronis]

"Did they baptize only believers by immersion? Probably not seeing that would muddy the drinking water or worse."

Well, they were all Orthodox so of course they baptized by immersion! None of that sprinkling stuff for us! As for the water, well, they were Fathers, so the water never, ever, got muddy; It always stayed cool and clear. :)

Seriously, there are very many stories from the Desert Fathers about the pools near monasteries and how they would dry up when the monks got "rowdy" or forgot their obligations and returned when they got back in line. The presence of sweet water for those guys out in the Egyptian or Judean desert was a big deal as you can imagine. The water works they set up near the monasteries and even more so near the "cells" of hermits are impressive. The remains of them can be seen in many places over there, particularly on the flanks of Mt. Sinai above the Monastery of St. Katherine.

[nanetteclaret]

I cover my head every time I attend Mass and I have seen other women do the same thing at various churches I have attended: Hat, scarf, chapel veil, etc. Not many, but some...

[nanetteclaret]

2 Maccabees talks about praying for the dead being a good and holy thing.

[blue-duncan]

When my grand nephew was baptized in the Greek Orthodox Church, as a baby, the Priest held him up naked and pronounced the first words of consecration, but when he tried to immerse him the baby grabbed both side of the baptismal font and started screaming. The Priest and every one there laughed for a while, the baby stopped crying, and the Priest started again with the words of consecration and tried to immerse the baby again. Again the baby screamed and held on to both sides of the font. The Priest was a little perturbed and embarrassed so he spoke softly to the baby trying to calm him down. The baby stopped crying and the Priest once again held him up and said the words of consecration and again the baby screamed and held on to the side of the font and the Priest recognizing the inevitable took a little water in his hand asked for forgiveness and sprinkled the boy to the applause of the congregation.

[nanetteclaret]

"Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."
2 Thessalonians 2:5 KJV

Scriputre AND Tradition

[blue-duncan]

"Your Bible gets read in snippets during your "services."

You keep making this statement, ignorant of what takes place in our churches. Once again, let me explain to you how we handle the scriptures. I'll go slowly since you seem to have trouble following it. We read the scriptures, in context, whole passages, and then the Pastor exegetes the scriptures for anywhere from 30-45 minutes depending on the scriptures. Usually people are taking notes and following on in their bibles or on the screen where the scriptures are projected. Now I recognize that might seem heavy to you being used to 10 minute "Readers Digest" homilies, but we find it spiritually challenging and following what the early church did.

Most of us read the scriptures through in a year as part of our daily devotions and expect in our congregational gatherings to have the gifts of preaching and teaching exercised.