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

[Marysecretary]

Whew! Powerful words. God's word is HIS word, not invented or written by man, but through man. You covered it pretty well.

[Marysecretary]

Tell em how ya really feel, Quix. I do believe they think we're pretty stupid. Sigh.

[Marysecretary]

Gee, I've been a christian for 38 years now and I've never seen a snake handler or a holy roller. Hmm. Must be missing something.

[Marysecretary]

Amen, Bainbridge!

[Marysecretary]

Hooray, blue, that's a great description for our ignorant friends who don't think protestants know anything about the Bible or even use it in our services. Bible believing churches always have scriptures and usually the sermon is based on scripture. Our pastor wants all of us to read through the Bible every year.

[Quix]

I really do not understand your thing with inspiration.

I know a little bit about INSPIRED WRITING BY HOLY SPIRIT and I just don't have categories or slots to put your perspective into.

If God directs Moses or John The Beloved or Daniel to write what He has shown them--it is still by His Spirit that He has shown them AND directed them to write. If He dictates it by each letter--it is still by His Spirit that He has done so. It is still Him doing it regardless of how one phrases the phenomena.

Metinks splitting these hairs is not toward enlightenment but maybe by some convoluted something more in the enemy's service of obsfucation or argument or debate. Not my preference.

[Quix]

Not my experience. Not my costructio on reality.

[Quix]

Excellent points.......Thx

[Quix]

Thanks for your kind words.

You post with punch when you're a mind to as well! LOL.

Thx.

[Quix]

Indeed.

[kosta50]

What exactly are you implying to Quix?

There is no implication. There is a difference between being enlightened by the Spirit and being His mindless secretary taking a dictation.

The reason I ask, is because I have seen here on FR, other Orthodox claim Protostants are not following the Holy Spirit, but rather demons like Mohammad

You will have to ask them. Certainly, the Muslimns deny any free will like the Reformed. Muslims claim Allah dictated the Koran word-by-word. Quix seems to beliebe the same thing.

The NT, however, is a narrative, expressing the same idea and the same revealed truths in many different ways but not simply echoing mindlessly God's pronouncements.

Even when Christ is directly quoted in the NT, the words are not exactly the same in different Gospels, so they are really paraphrasing; it is not dictated word-by-word.

[kosta50]

I really do not understand your thing with inspiration

I know.

Protestants seem to think they are little robots God cotnrols by remote control or by some invisible tractor beam. Muslims seem to think the same thing.

Metinks splitting these hairs is not toward enlightenment but maybe by some convoluted something more in the enemy's service of obsfucation or argument or debate

Enemy's service? What exactly are you implying here, Quix? If you can't grasp the difference between being enlightened and being a robotic recorder, I can't help you. But your reaching for the enemy card is disturbing to put it mildly.

[Quix]

Protestants seem to think they are little robots God cotnrols by remote control or by some invisible tractor beam.

I don't find your mind reading of protestants to have the slightest congruence with reality as I've known it for 60 years. You might consider asking for a refund from your mind-reading instructor.

Muslims seem to think the same thing.

Really? They have a lot of crazy notions . . . but I hadn't noticed that one before. Perhaps it's a glasses or hearing aid problem. Maybe the vendors offer refunds, too.

Metinks splitting these hairs is not toward enlightenment but maybe by some convoluted something more in the enemy's service of obsfucation or argument or debate

Enemy's service? What exactly are you implying here, Quix? If you can't grasp the difference between being enlightened and being a robotic recorder, I can't help you. But your reaching for the enemy card is disturbing to put it mildly.

At a church in San Diego, we sometimes noticed that satan would garble things BETWEEN speaker and hearer. Bystanders would be amazed. Speaker was in earnest and of good faith. So was listener but the issue was so important and what was being said may have threatened a stronghold the enemy had in an individual . . . for whatever reason . . . sometimes the communication was literally mangled IN TRANSMISSION--evidently by demonic forces.

Sometimes I wonder if that's what's happening here.

Phrases like . . . "If you can't grasp the difference between being enlightened and being a robotic recorder," just doesn't cut it in terms of expressing anything remotely related to my reality--regardless of where they originate from.

God's Word and Spirit enlighten me daily. The scribes of God's written WORD were not mindless recorders--even if God did dictate Moses books to him letter by letter. Cerainly Paul's personlity as well as John's and Peter's survive through their scribing accurately what God impressed upon them to write.

Regardless, I can't recall or fathom what difference this makes. Is there a point somewhere?

[kosta50]

The scribes of God's written WORD were not mindless recorders--even if God did dictate Moses books to him letter by letter

That sentence proves my point which you can't seem to grasp. Our mindsets are at opposite poles. As far as Satan being responsible for this, I can't argue with that. I think nothing made him happier than when a large segment of the Catholic population left the Church in the 16th century.

[Bainbridge]

I appreciate your thoughtful and cogent response.
I basically agree with you.
Bainbridge

[fortheDeclaration]

I never said there was no purpose to scriptures or that they were generated "at random." But it wasn't his to pronounce judgment either.

6 But that no such effect may ensue, let us give strict heed unto the things that are written;

Something about that you do not understand?

22. Why, then, was holy Scripture given?

To this end, that divine revelation might be preserved more exactly and unchangeably. In holy Scripture we read the words of the Prophets and Apostles precisely (emphasis added) as if we were living with them and listening to them, although the latest of the sacred books were written a thousand and some hundred years before our time.

23. Must we follow holy tradition, even when we possess holy Scripture?

We must follow that tradition which agrees with the divine revelation and with holy Scripture, as is taught us by holy Scripture itself. The Apostle Paul writes: Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word or our epistle. 2 Thess. ii. 15.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.vi.iii.i.html

Those are statements that any Bible believing Christian could agree with.

Now,if you have any more diagreements with our view on Sacred Scripture, you can argue with your own theologicans, since this Creed showed that some of your theologians agreed with us regarding the Hebrew scriptures, Apocrypha and importance of Scripture.

[kawaii]

expecting people who profess salvation by scripture alone to follow scripture is not arrogant, nor is putting as much forth 'spewing'.

[kosta50]

6 But that no such effect may ensue, let us give strict heed unto the things that are written ...Something about that you do not understand?

Your response is non-sequitur. Never did I suggest the scriptures were generated ar random or had no purpose; nor did I say they should not be heeded. You may wish to stay on the subject if you want to make sense.

To this end, that divine revelation might be preserved more exactly and unchangeably. In holy Scripture we read the words of the Prophets and Apostles precisely (emphasis added) as if we were living with them ...

Obviously not, since different bibles yield different words, and different inferences, so precision is not there.

Let's just look at the Gospels. The account of the last moments on the Cross are as different as night an day. And yet the only Apostle close enough to have heard Christ would have been +John! Others scattered out of sight, and +Luke wasn't even an Apostle at that time.

Both Christianity and Judaism depend to a large extent on oral teachings (tradition). How precise is that?

+John Chrysostom was using the Scriptures you call 'forgery.' yet, you find his writing agreeable. What he believed was precise rendering of Scriputre could be as different as night and day to you. And he also considered the "Apocrypha" as Scripture.

Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word or our epistle. 2 Thess. ii. 15...Those are statements that any Bible believing Christian could agree with

Of course. There is nothing in this that one could disagree with!

since this Creed showed that some of your theologians agreed with us regarding the Hebrew scriptures, Apocrypha and importance of Scripture

+John Chrysostom (5th c) did not subscribe to Hebrew scriptures, but to the same Scriptures the Orthodox subscribe to even today: Septuagint OT (with "Apocrypha") and the New Testament (sans Revelation, which was accepted after the 9th century AD)

[Alex Murphy]

Perhaps things are different at your church - one of the, what, million protestant sects?

Now this is excellent news - thank you for sharing this with us, AlaninSA! I had no idea that Protestantism held your interest to this degree! For the rest of you, it's worth noting that in the last week of January 2007, we achieved a dramatic 33% growth rate as Protestant denominations jumped from 30,000 to 40,000 denominations. And now, without even having finished the first quarter of 2007, we're told (thanks, Alan!) that our numbers have literally exploded into the millions, growing by an astronomical 2500%!

Yes, you read that right - the number of Protestant sects grew by twenty-five thousand percent, in just a scant five week period! And that growth rate is even larger - over thirty-three thousand percent - if you factor in that now-tiny-looking jump we enjoyed last January.

Congratulations, one and all! Your hard work has paid off!