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

[cyborg]

To think--JUST THINK--ALLLLLLL THOSE DUSTY TOMES OF THE TRADITIONS OF MEN; THE CHURCH FATHERS, THE MAGICSTERICAL--ALL ON THE BONFIRE!

"Where one burns books, one will soon burn people." --Heinrich Heine

[Quix]

Thanks.

I doubt that you or anyone of the remotest rational capacities construes every phrase, sentence and story in Scripture as 100% and always LITERAL.

Some things are obviously symbolic and some things are even stated as symbolic in Scripture.

Then there's context.

And, of course, perceptions and itnerpretations of context will differ amongst earnest reasonable Believers of all types.

I think it's not very . . . likely . . . that the same perceptioins will accrue across diverse individuals even within the same congregation--particularly on ALL Scriptures.

And certainly not between diverse congregations, denominations etc.

[Quix]

I wasn't the one asserting that God didn't care that much for Written Scripture. I just pushed that line of funny thinking to it's most logical conclusion.

[kawaii]

its hard to take st pau as having said women shouldbe silent given the numerous things he suggest they do in church in his writings.

Cortinthians is clear that its not about women speaking it's about women preaching (prophesizing)

heck within corinthians he mentions women singing as normal.

[kawaii]

it doesn't matter how many times its posted. protestants look at this as an oppurtunity to change God's commandments.

1Cr 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

1Cr 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

[kawaii]

sure you were. you've said God couldn't care less if women covered their heads and remainded silent several times.

Yet St Paul says its the commandments of God.

[Quix]

sure you were. you've said God couldn't care less if women covered their heads and remainded silent several times.
= = =

I don't recall putting it that way at all.

I have noted that it is my conviction that context is important in interpreting that verse. The evidence suggests that in the context of that culture of that time--women had a habit of yelling across the synagog asking hubby what the speaker had just meant by what he'd just said.

Quite reasonably, Paul was exhorting them to hush up and be respectful to the speaker and ask hubby at home what was meant.

But strainig at gnats and swallowing camels goes on plenty on the RRRRRRRRRRRRRRCc OOOOOOOOrthodox side.

[Kolokotronis]

LOL!!! Great story with a typical Greek solution and response! You know, BD, the canons were made for men, not men for the canons. :)

[kosta50]

I consider . . . say . . . . 42 TIMES to be considerably more than ONE!

The one relevant example I was referring to in the NT is Rev 1:19, where God is not dictating but commissioning the author to write what the author knows:

Therefore write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after these things.

[kosta50]

1Cr 14:34 ...

But then, the commandment of being covered is routinely ignored by Apostolic churches. We have no leg to stand on, kawaii.

Your observation is technically correct, but morally we have no right to accuse the Protestants of ignoring Scriptutre when we do the same.

If some prots ignore the commandment about women being silent, and we ignore (with notable exceptions) the one about being covered, is it not that we are noticing the thorn in our brother's eye and can't see the log in our own?

[kosta50]

The evidence suggests that in the context of that culture of that time--women had a habit of yelling across the synagog asking hubby what the speaker had just meant by what he'd just said

Could you cite some evidence for this?

[fortheDeclaration]

Yes, and if you reject this 'second best' which God gave because of man's sin, then you are twice damned!

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.

[Bainbridge]

He is not a simpleton and he knows that.
He is simply playing Columbo.
It can work as a devise to advance discussion.
It can also be false humility which shows contempt to his victims.
In my opinion, Jo Kus does not mean ill.

[jo kus]

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.

LOL! The older I get, the more I see how little I really know...

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.

Fair enough. I suppose that has been the topic of choice when I have been posting lately. I hope I didn't come off too strongly on you - but I have been discussing this for a month with others. Sorry if my frustration made itself manifest.

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

Again, what I think is of little consequence, as long as you love, because then, you have Christ abiding within you. That's a good start.

Brother in Christ

[jo kus]

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:

We've discussed this ad nauseum, 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). And while some may "give may first give credit" to man, I think people don't really mean that man is above God or that man can do nothing without God.

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. There is nothing wrong with realizing the dignity of man. We don't have to be "worms" in our own eyes to realize that we need God, that we are wounded creatures. I think some people overexaggerate EITHER side. One can treat man as God's puppet, others treat man as if we rule our own destiny. As usual, the truth is a balance between the two. The Scriptures make a nice balance between the two concepts - and so should we.

Brother in Christ

[jo kus]

Sorry about the lack of HTML in the last post...

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:

We've discussed this ad nauseum, 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). And while some may "give may first give credit" to man, I think people don't really mean that man is above God or that man can do nothing without God.

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.

There is nothing wrong with realizing the dignity of man. We don't have to be "worms" in our own eyes to realize that we need God, that we are wounded creatures. I think some people overexaggerate EITHER side. One can treat man as God's puppet, others treat man as if we rule our own destiny. As usual, the truth is a balance between the two. The Scriptures make a nice balance between the two concepts - and so should we.

Brother in Christ

[ScubieNuc]

In my opinion, Jo Kus does not mean ill.

I would agree. Jo is a dedicated Catholic apologist. Someone whom I largely disagree with, but have also learned alot through our past discussions.

In my opinion, even though Jo and I don't see eye to eye on alot of Christian doctrine, I still consider him a Brother in Christ.

Sincerely

[Puddleglum]

ping to myself to read later

[jo kus]

He is not a simpleton and he knows that. He is simply playing Columbo. It can work as a devise to advance discussion. It can also be false humility which shows contempt to his victims. In my opinion, Jo Kus does not mean ill.

Well, I guess I am not a simpleton - but I do realize my limitations. I think it would be better to err in being thought a simpleton than a genius. I certainly do not mean ill, and I hope I didn't convey that message. While I may disagree with some people's theology here, I believe we are all united in many aspects, and I prefer to remember that rather than focus on where we are not united.

Regards

[Ping-Pong]

"I rely on Scripture."

I think we all should. When Jesus said, "Take heed that no man deceive you" it was a warning. How can you know that you are being deceived unless you search scripture?

Ultimately it comes down to that. Satan is a scripture lawyer and he twists it to suit his purpose. It may be good to listen to various teachings and interpretations but I believe they must be proven in God's Word before they are accepted. Church fathers, of any denomination, should be held to that test. After all, when we stand before God He is not going to say that, although we followed a wrong doctrine, we are excused because that is what we were taught. God wrote a letter and Jesus said, "It is written" and "have you read it". He also said that He would send strong delusion and if we wanted to believe a lie He would help us achieve it.

I believe your post contains much wisdom.