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

[blue-duncan]

"when it's something protestants like 'its the truth' when its something they reject its 'just a metaphor and means something completely opposite'"

James 2:18, ".....and I will shew thee my faith by my works."

I suppose one could say that the Orthodox church is showing its faith by its association with the World Council of Churches and the National Council of Churches; both aggressively promote homosexuality and abortion on demand. Both organizations undermine the authority of the scriptures, the divinity of Christ and the exclusivity of salvation alone in the finished work of Christ.

1 Cor 15:33, "Be not deceived: evil companionship corrupt good manners."

2 Cor. 6:14-17, "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,"

These are commands, not suggestions.

[kawaii]

noting that the few orthodox churches in the ncc and wcc are observing members. (there to witness to the psuedochristians what real christianity is)

its somewhat hypocritica to take part of corinthians as commandments but not 11 and 14

[kawaii]

indeed can anything be more clearly inspired by Satan than the notion that unbeleivers are pious beleivers, and that folks are beleivers regardless of what they beleive?

[kosta50]

Oh, I am back on the ping list? Thank you! :) I guess my excommunication was valid only for the previous thread.

I suppose one could say that the Orthodox church is showing its faith by its association with the World Council of Churches and the National Council of Churches; both aggressively promote homosexuality and abortion on demand

The Church deals with the real world, confronting its realities rather than ignoring them. It is better for the Orthodox Churches to state their opposition among those who are mislead as to what the Church finds disagreeable than to ignore it.

The Orthodox Church does not promote homosexuality or support any kind of abortion. It hopes to persuade those who are obviously wrong (like many, many Protestant denomination who belong to those organizations, support homosexuality and promote abortion on demand) to denounce thier heresy and return to the right faith.

1 Cor 15:33, "Be not deceived: evil companionship corrupt good manners."

And yet Christ said to the adulteress "There is no one here to condemn you."

He also said not to worry about what you will eat. God will provide for you. And Paul says that if man doesn't work, he doesn't eat! Night and day.

[kosta50]

indeed can anything be more clearly inspired by Satan than the notion that unbeleivers are pious beleivers, and that folks are beleivers regardless of what they beleive?

That's why Alexander Kalomiros says in his "River of Fire"

"But what was the instrument of the devil’s slandering of God? What means did he use in order to convince humanity, in order to pervert human thought? He used 'theology.' He first introduced a slight alteration in theology which, once it was accepted, he managed to increase more and more to the degree that Christianity became completely unrecognizable. This is what we call 'Western theology.'"

[blue-duncan]

Well, now that we have established that the Orthodox church picks and choses the scriptures it wants to follow, it seems that the phrase "pot calling the kettle black" is relevant here.

"(there to witness to the psuedochristians what real christianity is)"

That's funny! I have a friend who goes to church once or twice a year but he spends a lot of time in bars and he tells his wife the same thing every time he comes home drunk.

[kawaii]

can you actually show any time the orthodox have voted with the wcc and ncc against Christian values?

didn't think so.

can i get a protestant canard ping?

[DungeonMaster]

THEIR'S DOES NOT SAY THAT EITHER! LOL.

I know, which makes the whole thread moot. The Marian differences would require an entirely different bible, the actual differences between the two are trivial by comparison.

[blue-duncan]

"can you actually show any time the orthodox have voted with the wcc and ncc against Christian values?"

You vote with your continuing membership and the payment of your dues and assessments. Words mean nothing, actions do. It's the old saying, "You are known by the company you keep."

[Quix]

I know, which makes the whole thread moot. The Marian differences would require an entirely different bible, the actual differences between the two are trivial by comparison.

== ==

Indeed.

There you go again, mixing up facts, reality vs rabidly blind biased fantasy! LOL.

I keep wondering . . . would it be possible to have an 'ALL BUT RC/ORTHO CAUCUS THREAD" ??

[kawaii]

The phrarisees said the same of Christ with regard to the company he kept.

Interesting how un-Christian your statement is. Did Christ only preach to the best temple going folks or did he go to the seddyest places and witness to those most in need of hearing the word of God?

I guess your brand of Christianity only preaches to the choir eh?

[DungeonMaster]

There you go again, mixing up facts, reality vs rabidly blind biased fantasy! LOL.

I keep wondering . . . would it be possible to have an 'ALL BUT RC/ORTHO CAUCUS THREAD" ??

Calvinism threads certainly exclude RCs. Actually it's more fun debating the scriptural veracity, or lack thereof, of Marianism than simply agreeing about doctrines with Protestants. Weird isn't it?

[Forest Keeper]

there is a gap between thought and writing. this is accentuated when translating.

OK, then if I'm reading you correctly, the gap you speak of is not filled by God at the point of the actual writing. I would expect you to say that such gaps are filled by the Church later. If so, then we have the situation of God allowing error into His Holy word, with the intention of having those errors later corrected by only a certain group of men (with acceptance by the laity). To those without access to those men, the Bible would just be another book filled with errors. That would by necessity then make the consensus patrum the highest earthly authority, well above the Bible (full of errors).

[Quix]

Agreed . . . WITH

those WHO

retain or display evidence of . . .

rational thought; civility; a shred of fair-mindedness . . . etc. The rabidly hostile and haughty TRUE BELIEVERS in the worst sense . . . are not much fun at all.

I just received the following by email. I think it fits very well such a diverse Christian forum:

####################################

And the reality about the Body of Christ:

Psalm 5
7 Because of your great mercy,
I come to your house, Lord,
and I am filled with wonder
as I bow down
to worship
at your holy temple.

A long time ago I saw a vision of a box with candy
Do you know Quality Street Candies?!

We had them in the Netherlands a long time ago!

A big box with different candies ( The taste and smell and collor of each one was different)

But I remember they all where very good!

Then the Lord showed me that His purpose for His body was the same as the box of candies!

Unity in deversity!

We all have a different taste, smell and collor ( we are unique)

But together we are HIS Body!

And He gives us HIS quality!

But then He showed me that we where not unique anymore!
We all looked the same....because if we wanted to participate a congregation we needed to walk and talk all in the same way!

(The foundation they build on, was not The Lord but their own doctrines)

And I saw the vision of the box filled with different candy, changed in a box with a sticky mass, you did not recognize the different candy anymore, and it did not smell good, and it did not taste good, and the collors where gone!

The quality was gone!

The world is standing before great trials and nothing will be the same anymore within a short time, the world will change dramatic

We can hear the footstaps of our Lover!

So wake up, and be yourselve! Trust Him, He will heal you and make you holy!
.
This morning I woke up, because I heared the sound of a hamer cutting on a stone!

And suddenly I realized that He is the one who takes us ( living stone) in His hand, and He is the one who takes care of how we must look, He removes the dirth, and will place us together with the other stones!

We can rest, in His hands, HE WILL DO IT!

And the different stones will be together one Temple because Yeshua will be the cement between each of us.
Then we can be the Bride, He wants us to be, without judgement, without all things that come out of the flesh!
Jesus is asking from us to be His witness not to convince or persuade.

He can help us to LOVE each other, but also to love and help the apple of His eye The Jewish people!

Not only those who recognize Yeshua, no we must comfort all of HIS people!

All of them, and HIS love that He will shine through us, will melted all the walls like wax!

It is time, arise and shine!

Time is short and the world must see that our God is alive and is coming back real soon!

May this message bless you!

Your sister from the Netherlands

Catharina Schouten

www.tesjoeva.nl

[Alex Murphy]

Calvinism threads certainly exclude RCs.

Only the Caucus ones do. And the "Catholic Caucus" threads likewise exclude Calvinists. What's your point?

[HKMk23]

Though I haven't done anything approaching research you'd describe as "exhaustive", my own casual reading of the various versions leads me to conclude that, in comparing the KJV to the NIV, you chose an accepted version that is, perhaps, only surpassed in linguistic weakness by The Living Bible, and the recent "The Message". Jokingly regarded as the "Never Improved Version", the NIV, does some disputable things with those few phrases and passages in the canon of scripture that remain in dispute; some 400 words, IIRC.

Mark 11:26 is not in some of the early manuscripts, so weighting inclusion more or less heavily upon the dating of the source manuscripts, that is, allowing that earlier manuscripts tend toward greater reliability, has an impact on whther the verse gets included in the main body of the text or relegated to the footnotes. The NIV team weighted manuscript dating more heavily, so the verse, not appearing in some early manuscripts, ended up in the footnotes. This leaves it up to the reader to decide whether the verse's absence in some early manuscripts is of significance. the NASB did the opposite. The verse is included in the main body of the text, but linked with a footnote that observes it's absence in early manuscripts.

Whichever of these methods you perfer, I believe that either is preferable to the King James, which makes no note to the reader at all.

The same may be observed regarding the disputed passage in Mark 16:9-20. The NIV and NASB include it all in the main text, but with notes alerting the reader that the content appears in some manuscripts, but not others that are considered most reliable and authoritative; the NIV explaining, "The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20." The KJV quotes the entire passage without comment.

In sum, I have found the NASB to be a more accurate rendering of the original languages and more accessible to the modern reader than the venerable King James, though, in this internet age, I typically read from more than one version when I'm exploring a text.

http://bible.gospelcom.net/

This website has several versions acessible, including literal versions, which are little more than word-by-word translation set in near-English word order. Comparing the KJV, NIV, and NASB to, say "Young's Literal" is a very helpful exercise.

[FourtySeven]

You'll have to define at a minimum what these doctrines are that you claim incompatibly divide these hypothetically still-Protestant denominations, before I'll even entertain accepting your premise.

This chart does a nice job dividing 5 denominations by belief, but let me summarize 10, some of which I'm sure you will make the claim "that's a cult", but that's ok, as I'll explain later.

In the list below, I will after listing one denomination, make a breif statement of how it differs from the others, thus showing how it is incompatible with the others.

1. Jehovah's Witnesses - Do not believe Jesus is God
2. Baptist (American Baptist Church-it's funny how there are so many Baptists isnt it?) - believe in OSAS
3. Anglican - Believe baptism is an effectual means of salvation
4. United Pentecostal Church (again, this could be a subcategory all its own, but the most popular) - rejects the notion of the Trinity, instead, embraces Modalism, or, the notion that Jesus is simply a different "mode" of God, not a distinct person all His Own.
5. Methodists - reject free will
6. Mormons - believe in adding to Scripture vis a vis a "new book"(note, if asked, they will say Jesus is God, but they don't embrace either Modalism or Trinitarianism, in the classical sense)
7. Seventh Day Adventists - believe in adhering to a Sabbatarian style of worship, and reject Sunday Day worship
8. Lutherans - premarital sex is "discouraged" but not expressly forbidden
9. Church of Christ, (or Christian Science) - creation is entirely spiritual and perfect and matter does not exist
10. Rastafarians (in general) - Use marijuana in religious rituals and for medicine

Now, at this point, I'm going to guess that you will reject 10, 9, 7, 6, (possibly 4), by calling them "cults", (and I'd agree with that classifcation for 10, I included 10 to demonstrate that simply based on a "belief in Jesus" how far one group can go), and as I said that's fine. You are still left with the clear MAJOR distinctions between 2, 3, 5, and 8.

That's 4 groups, twice what I said (when I said "even if the number of doctrinally divided denominations was only TWO") would at LEAST show that a concept of an "invisible church" falls flat on its face, since, if there is to be an "invisible church", then there shouldn't be MAJOR doctrinal differences in it.

And while you're having trouble imagining it, try to imagine why He permitted the Catholics and the Orthodox to fall out of communion with each other as well...

For the purposes of this discussion (whether or not there is one VISIBLE church or an "invisible church"), Orthodox and Catholics agree (we both agree that there is only ONE VISIBLE church, we just disagree which one that is), so the division between our two churches is irrelevant. To be clear, what I'm criticizing is this notion of an "invisible church". Facing this concept of an "invisible church" we are left with two possibilities, none of which you personally can accept (that I can see):

1. This invisible church simultaneously rejects and accepts all the different doctrines mentioned above, a ludicrous proposition OR...

2. There really isn't any reason to NOT accept the Catholic and Orthodox churches as part of this invisible mega church, since again, they agree and disagree as much as the ones mentioned above.

So I'm interested in your reply. And remember, for the purposes of this discussion, pointing out the differences between the Orthodox and Catholic is irrelevant, because as I've demonstrated, there are clear differences between at LEAST FOUR, mainstream Protestant denominations. (Maybe even 10 if you accept my entire list, but again, the number isn't relevant, because all I really had to demonstrate to prove my general point was to point to TWO Protestant denominations, and explain how they differed SIGNIFICANTLY)

So this disproves the notion of a "doctrinally unified invisible church", a concept that BOTH Orthodox and Catholics reject.

[Forest Keeper]

FK: "It sounds like your or the Orthodox view (or both) is that any individual book of the Bible could be riddled with error, but that the Bible taken as a whole is nevertheless still "God's inspired word"."

Just as the First (Old) Covenant was not protected from corruption, nothing else that deals with us is. God knew that mankind would become awful and that He would have to bring His people back on track through select individuals. By allowing evil, He allows corruption by definition.

I take from this that you see "the Church" as being the only infallible earthly authority. This would appear to put the writings of the Apostles on a par with those of the individual Fathers, sometimes right, sometimes wrong. Only the Church decides which are true. This tends to confirm my hypothesis that the Orthodox put the Church WAY above scripture. It's black and white, the Church is never wrong, but parts of the scripture are.

[Alex Murphy]

In the list below, I will after listing one denomination, make a breif statement of how it differs from the others, thus showing how it is incompatible with the others

Dude, there are so many factual errors in that list of ten that I'm not sure where to even start. So please do a little more research before you put it out there again, because right now it just makes this Roman Catholic apologetic a violation of the Eighth Commandment (or Ninth, for those not Catholic)

[FourtySeven]

Ok, if you say so, I guess I really am wrong.

That's nice how that works: I, Alex Murphy, say your list of doctrinal differences is wrong, therefore, that makes it wrong.

Well enough silliness. Care to explain how it's wrong? Take your time. Don't feel like you're under time constraints or anything, after all, this is a discussion board, not a chat room.

If you don't explain how it's wrong, I have no reason to believe it is, after all, many of the statements I gave about the particular denominations are straight off their respective websites' statements of faiths. Don't know how much more factual I could get.