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

[Alex Murphy]

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.

Links to those original statements (or at least a link to the apologetics resource you used) would prove helpful.

[Forest Keeper]

[Kosta to Kawaii:] K, what do you think of this sweeping generalization by one of our Freepers:

"Anyone in any sect can become a Christian if he or she puts their faith and trust in Jesus Christ and Him alone"

So, the theology doesn't matter! I guess that makes Arians, Nestorians, Monophysites, Moromons and Jeohva's Witnesses, Bogomils and Ebionites all part of one happy "church' and family. They all, one way or another, call on Christ. Doesn't the NT say that the devils believe and tremble as well? What does that make them?

No fair tearing into a direct quote without pinging the poster. When I read the original quote it was clear to me she referred to the Christ revealed in the Holy scriptures. (She was talking about converting TO Christianity FROM the types of groups you listed.) I didn't think that your side and mine disagreed on the identity of that Christ. The LDS, Mormons, etc., DO. You and I have profound differences in theology, but on the identity of Christ we are very close, if not identical. That's why I would never lump you in with those other groups. Please do not do that with us. :)

[kosta50]

I take from this that you see "the Church" as being the only infallible earthly authority.

Collectively, of course. It is much more likely that personal interpretations and errors of judgment will not become anything more than a fleeting opinion, such as is the case with Protestants individually.

This would appear to put the writings of the Apostles on a par with those of the individual Fathers, sometimes right, sometimes wrong.

No. I am surprised that you would think that since Kolokotronis pounded that point with you. The Church Fathers collectively (by consensus) represent the Church (Ecumenical Councils), but never individually. After they agree, the People of God must accept it. Only when the whole Church, the hierarchy and the laity, agree does it become part of Church doctrine. I am speaking for the Orthodox Church of course. This is the way it has been done since the Church was established.

The Fathers also never claimed to be inspired. The Chgurch is based on the consensus patrum: that on which the Fathers agreed collectively must agree with the Scripture and with the life of the Church, as recorded from the earliest days of Christianity. There can be no contradiciton or doubt. The Orthodox Church has very few official doctrines: Trinity, Christology, Incarnation, Resurrection. basically, what's in the Creed. The Church also added the doctrine that Mary is the Mother of God in response to those heresies (which seem to linger up to the present time, even on this Forum) that diminished Jesus Christ's divinity.

Only the Church decides which are true

The Church interprets the Scriptures based on its collective knowledge, and not on individual reliance of spiritual guidance. The conciliar nature of Christ's Apostolic Church is based on the principle of checks and balances.

This tends to confirm my hypothesis that the Orthodox put the Church WAY above scripture

You are way wrong, FK, or should I say you have relapsed, since at one time you certainly had demonstrated much greater comprehension of the Orthodox ways. Find me one Orthodox source that confirms your 'hypothesis.' Let me help you: there is none, don't waste your time.

It's black and white, the Church is never wrong, but parts of the scripture are

Wrong again, FK. Individual interpretations are wrong. The Church as a whole is not. The Protestant mindset is just the opposite: the individual is right; the group is wrong.

Constitution by itself is nothing unless it is interpreted correctly. That's why we have trained judges along with checks and balances. And, as the very Scripture says, in the Church some are apostles, some prophets and teachers, etc. Obviously not everyone is qualified to interpret the Constitution, and not everyone is qualified to interpret the Bible correctly just because it makes for fascinating reading.

[FourtySeven]

Ok, well it might be helpful (so I'm not chasing rabbit trails), if you told me:

1. Which ones you automatically reject as "cults" and...
2. Which statements that remain you believe are false.

If you don't want to do that, then to answer your question generally, #1 is clear, anyone knows that. Similarly for #10. And #7. And #4. The statements regarding those points are known by virtually anyone with a casual knowledge of those faiths.

The proof of the rest can actually be found at the link I provided in post #457. That website's chart has links to the relevant statement of faiths of the faith in question. It links directly to the different faith's own websites.

I do not feel I should be forced to provide those links separately, as they are all separately provided at the site in #457. But as an example, let me anticipate that you have difficulty believing my assertion that Lutherans "discourage, but do not explicitly condemn, premarital sex".

http://www.elca.org/socialstatements/sexuality/

That is the relevant statement and note, in the section entitled "Promiscuity" (which is the only one that seems to address the issue), while "casual sex" is condemned, it doesn't say "premarital sex". In other words, anyone who is an average person in todays sexually free society, very well could interpret that as, "Well, I don't SLEEP AROUND, I don't have CASUAL sex, but I don't believe we should wait until marriage before I have sex, for goodness sakes!" And there's nothing in the Lutheran statement to say they are wrong.

I don't know why a reasonable person would say differently. Note, in the same section ( http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/charts/denominations_ethics.htm ) , the other churches that have taken a stand (made a statement on the issue) CLEARLY state that ALL sex before marriage is wrong, again, backed up by their own website's statements.

So, go ahead, go to the website in #457. The statements are all there. I'm not going to track down each statement and prove it with independent websites (as again THAT IS there on the website from #457, it will just take some work on your part to see it).

If you have a question about a particular statement however, then tell me. I'll be happy to track down a specific objection. But again, I don't want to chase down rabbit trails, on groups you may consider cults.

[kosta50]

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?

Yup. He said He didn't come to call the righteous but the sinners, the spiritual riffraff, the worst company one can imagine.

And what are we to say of Paul's statement? Bad company will corrupt us? As if we are not corrupt already? Or as if some of us are somehow exempt!

[ScubieNuc]

But the seduction of inexperienced, newbie Christian lurkers is a concern on that score. They deserve some rational edifying counter responses to some of the hideous statements posted.

I hear you, brother. You've done an excellent job of defending your faith...

1Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and [be] ready always to [give] an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

With people like kawaii, I think you just have to "shake the dust from your feet."

Mark 6:11 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

Anyone reading what Kawaii posts, will see that she doesn't want to know what you believe. IMO, kawaii simply wants to degrade what you and I and millions of non-orthodox catholics believe. Kawaii isn't concerned with knowing the truth of Protestants. Rather, kawaii believes she already has all the truth, and is given the authority to bash non-orthodox.

I see nothing positive in continuing with kawaii, so I would just bid "adieu." If anyone really wants to know the answers to potential questions raised by kawaii, they can always post to you or others directly, or go to any number of great websites that explain Protestant beliefs. Here is a good start.

Sincerely

[Quix]

Seems to me, There's great Spirit-led wisdom in your exhortation.

I receive it . . . will prayerfully ponder. May not have a 100% one way response all the time . . . but I think you have layed out the wisdom course and I hope to be able to follow it most of the time, wholesale.

And, you put it much more charitably than I might have.

Thanks.

[Alex Murphy]

Let's start with the big errors first, because everything you've posted since points back to them. The big error begins all the way back with your post #414, and especially with this assertion...

Indeed, I do tend to cringe a bit when others say, "There's over 30,000 Protestant denominations that have grown out of the Reformation", as I haven't really been able to find a website that lists all 30,000 (or 20,000 or even 10,000) denominations....there are at least 10 independent, completely incompatible [doctrinally speaking] denominations....Did God ever intend such confusion, such heights of discord and disunity, in His Church...?

Speaking for myself, I cannot see God, who is NOT the author of confusion, allowing members of His Church to wonder whether or not His Son is God, much less all the other doctrines that clearly divide at LEAST 10 Protestant denominations from another.

Now let's look again at that list of yours, which you claimed above was a list of ten incompatible Protestant denominations...

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

Tell me when you notice any errors. I'll give you a clue - one can be found in #2.

[blue-duncan]

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

But Christ did not join political movements, nor did He contribute to causes for the exposure of infants, nor did He promote homosexual rights. He certainly did not join those who would denigrate the scriptures with their traditions, nor did He countenance those who denied His deity, all as do the WCC and NCC to which the Orthodox church belongs abnd actively contributes to.

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

No, my brand of christianity witnesses to the lost but does not actively promote the lost's causes that are anathema to the gospel. When the scripture states explicity to come out and be separate from those that actively oppose the gospel, we do. We don't maintain our membership for the world's sake and we don't contribute our funds to causes that oppose what we believe and we don't lend our name to organizations that put up road blocks to keep people from hearing the good news of Jesus Christ.

[ScubieNuc]

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.

(((chuckle))) Wow! That's a funny way to sweep the division under the rug. It's like saying "Ignore the man behind the curtain." It may work for you, but I certainly don't see your reasoning.

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.

So this disproves the notion of a "doctrinally unified invisible church"...

First, I don't know where you get the idea of a "doctrinally unified invisible church." I've never heard of that idea in all the different Protestant churches I've been in.

Second, I know I have brothers and sisters in Christ in Baptist, Pentecostal, Methodist, Lutheran, Catholic, and even one I know of in the SDA. There are definately doctrinal issues that we don't agree on, but we are all of the same body. These issues will be fully cleared up in Glory.

As for now, it is good to give the reasons that you believe what you do, but not so good to imply that all protestants are not of the Body of Christ.

Sincerely

[Quix]

INDEED.

WELL PUT.

Those who think they have a uniquely special and complete corner on absolute truth--especially absolutely--seem, to me, to be ragingly awash in supreme arrogance.

I have not observed . . . that to be a fruit of The Spirit.

[kawaii]

yes ts degrading i suppose to expect that folks who claim to rally scripture actually follow 282 words of it.

[kawaii]

did christ go into establishments where evil folks did evil things? certainly.

there is no way to witness to the WCC or NCC save to enter AS OBSERVING MEMBERS NOT FULL MEMBERS and to have a forum there from which to criticize antiChristian moves by this group.

[JockoManning]

Quixisms marker:

'ROTFLOL BLTTM [Belly Laugh To The Max] FOMCLOL [Falling Off My Chair Laughing Out Loud] ROTFLMHO [Rolling On The Floor Laughing My Head Off] ITTM [Incredulous To The Max] GTTM [Guffaws To The Max] SHSMEACAB [Shaking Head So Much Ears Are Creating A Breeze] SHSMIHCBFMLN [Shaking Head So Much I Have Cheek Bruises From My Long Nose]'

[Quix]

Thanks for your kind thoughts but only these are mine:

ITTM [Incredulous To The Max] GTTM [Guffaws To The Max] SHSMEACAB [Shaking Head So Much Ears Are Creating A Breeze] SHSMIHCBFMLN [Shaking Head So Much I Have Cheek Bruises From My Long Nose]

[JockoManning]

Post #327 Quixisms marker

ITTM [Incredulous To The Max] GTTM [Guffaws To The Max] SHSMEACAB [Shaking Head So Much Ears Are Creating A Breeze] SHSMIHCBFMLN [Shaking Head So Much I Have Cheek Bruises From My Long Nose]

[ScubieNuc]

Dear kawaii,

Since you didn't fully understand my post #466, I will try to be a little clearer.

You think I and my beliefs are wrong and/or evil. Fine, I get that.

You posts are primarily attacks and not reasoned discussion. I see in 1 Peter 3:15 where I should be prepared to give a defense of what I believe to those that ask, but I don't see any direction to continue a discussion with someone who just wishes to argue.

As was the direction given to the Apostles in Mark 6:11 (to leave those who do not accept the gospel of Jesus) so shall I also follow. I will leave you with your beliefs and the dust from my feet. Consider your posts ignored.

Adieu

[RobbyS]

One must add that the scholar Luther was under the delusion that he had the most authetic texts at his disposal, that he was looking at the TRUE texts of Scripture which were far superior to the Vulgate. Fact is that Erasmus' Bible was based on some inferior Greek texts, as were the standard Engliush translations of the whole Bible including the KJB.

[blue-duncan]

"did christ go into establishments where evil folks did evil things? certainly."

When Christ went where the disbelieving religious leaders were He called them "children of the devil", "whited sepulchers" tore up their money making schemes, and used them as examples of what not to be. He didn't join their organizations, guilds or have friendly debates with them. There were plenty of sinners outside the religious establishment to hear what He had to offer than to waste His time in friendly debates with the enemy. I haven't heard of any filibusters or the withholding of dues or press releases from the Orthodox church protesting any of the "antichristian" moves of these religious leaders, but what I do see is the Orthodox named among the members which tells everyone that it agrees with the direction of the groups.

What is says is that the Orthodox church has more in common spiritually with the members of the WCC and the NCC that it does with Evangelical churches.

[Quix]

Perseveration is not a hopeful sign.