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

[Cvengr]

Catholic Bibles smell funny.

[Quix]

No doubt.

However, I'll exercise uncommon self-control and refrain from speculating about the causes.

LOL.

[Cvengr]

I think it was that funny man in the funny hat with the funny sensor hanging around it insisting extrabiblical Scripture be added to it.....he's a bad man.

[Quix]

I've always thought it safer to follow the exhortation at the end of Revelation re trying to add or take away from Scripture.

Some serious stuff in that curse.

[kosta50]

47: 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

ScubieNuc: (((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

FouretySeven is not sweeping anything under the rug. The disagreement within the Church is not the same as being outside the Church, and Protestants are outside the Church.

Our differences will be reconciled when the next General (Ecumenical) Council meets. The Pope and the Orthodox Patriarchs are working on this to happen.

The disagreement on some points of theology is preventing us to intercommune, as communion is an expression, and not a means of achiving unity. Our bishops receive their authority from Apostolic Succession (and I don't really care to hear what the Protestants think about it; I have already heard it all); the Church in the East and in the West has the same sacraments. It's one Church, in disagreement over some issues.

The Church reconciled its misunderstandings in 1964, and committed the events that took place in 1054 "to oblivion."

If you knew a little bit about this subject you wouldn't be making such sweeping generalizations. Instead you are just shooting from the hip, and this has turned into a shooting gallery.

It's Great Lent and I don't need to be tempted, so I will leave it up to the End of Times List to pat each other on the back and congratulate each other. We don't have much to say to each other anyway.

Someone said a few posts ago that the Catholic Bible smells funny. That's rich.

I wish everyone a blessed Pascha.

[Quix]

(and I don't really care to hear what the Protestants think about it; I have already heard it all)

As though we protesties haven't heard it all! So, evidently we are seen as such lobotomized brain dead vacuum heads that we don't have brain power left to manage our own digestive gasses without burning down the house!

I guess it's back to the brain dead mindless robots. I wonder what that makes God that He created a bunch of brain dead mindless robots to felowship intimately with. Does that make God the paragon Olympic Gold Medalist UNderachiever in the Friendship department? LOL!

Color me:
--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]
--LOTFSMMTACTC [Laughing On The Floor So Much My Tears Are Cleaning The Carpet]
--CSMOTBPPIGD [Crying So Much Over The Blithely Pathetic Postulations I'm Getting Dehydrated]

If you knew a little bit about this subject you wouldn't be making such sweeping generalizations.

WOW. Another smoke signal from the TRIBE WITH NO MIRRORS. GTTM!

Instead you are just shooting from the hip, and this has turned into a shooting gallery.

Oh, as in all those Protesty baiting and bashing thread titles and topics? That kind of shooting gallery? GTTM!

Oh, dear. I think all this laughter has strengthened my immune system. I thank you.

[ScubieNuc]

The disagreement within the Church is not the same as being outside the Church, and Protestants are outside the Church.

I'm being honest here...this just reads like a word dance. Part of it is because you define words differently than Protestants do. The word for church in the NT is ekklesia, which simply means a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly.

Ekklesia also means

1) an assembly of Christians gathered for worship in a religious meeting

2) a company of Christian, or of those who, hoping for eternal salvation through Jesus Christ, observe their own religious rites, hold their own religious meetings, and manage their own affairs, according to regulations prescribed for the body for order's sake

3) those who anywhere, in a city, village, constitute such a company and are united into one body

4) the whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth

5) the assembly of faithful Christians already dead and received into heaven


You obviously define Church to be those who attach the word Catholic to the title. I don't see your meaning any where prescribed to the earliest Christians in the New Testament. Therefore, we disagree.

If you knew a little bit about this subject you wouldn't be making such sweeping generalizations. Instead you are just shooting from the hip, and this has turned into a shooting gallery.

You are right and wrong in the same quote. I don't know all the details that separate the Orthodox from the Roman Catholic Church. Maybe I'll study it, but probably not.

I'm not "just shooting from the hip." Rather I'm trying to make my points in laymens terms. It is an honest attempt to correct 47's misconceptions.

I don't know what sweeping generalizations you are refering to. The ones that I saw was the idea that there are thousands of Protestant sects in opposition to one another. That wasn't my sweeping generalization.

It's Great Lent and I don't need to be tempted, so I will leave it up to the End of Times List to pat each other on the back and congratulate each other.

That's funny! Seriously, that is funny. Obviously you haven't given up tossing out sarcastic barbs at those you disagree with. It's not that I'm apposed to sarcastic barbs (I like to use them myself) but my post was a serious rebuttal to 47.

We don't have much to say to each other anyway.

That's probably true, but then my post wasn't to you...it was to 47. So I guess you just posted to me to say your not going to post to me. Hmmm, Okay.

I wish everyone a blessed Pascha.

I'll assume that Pascha is the same as Lent, so I guess that's a good thing. It's always good to end on a good note, so I'll say "Thank You" and sign off.

Sincerely

[Quix]

What is the difference between the two Bibles?

Ahhhhhwwww . . . uhhhhh . . . ponder, ponder . . . maybe

it's the unequal percentage of slavishly mindlessly bullheaded readers???

I mean it's somewhat logical to conjecture that the percentages would not be absolutely equal.

Now which side would the imbalance be on . . . what a puzzle.

Which edifice most facilitates such an attitude . . . pondering . . . pondering . . .

I've known a lot of preachers who facilitated such an attitude to buttress their own insecurity based power mongering . . . But they didn't really represent all of Protestantism.

Which side has the greatest historical demonstration of cultivating such an attitude toward their Biblical versions . . . pondering . . . pondering . . . And do we see any evidence of such in the current era . . .

[.30Carbine]

I do see God as the master artist who doesn’t mix all the colors on His palette into one, but rather uses each color in contrast to the other to create His living masterpiece.

Thank you so much Alamo-Girl, for pinging me to your interesting comments, Scripturally based and filled with Wisdom from Above, and to this discussion.

I believe the first disciples themselves are a grand and accurate picture and a proof of your assertion. See how different in personality Peter is from John, yet Christ chose both and used each to great effect - they are still speaking. Look at Stephen compared to James, or Paul in relation to Lydia, Matthew to Thomas.

O! The Creator God is a God of variety as well as of unity. The greatest composition among human creatures whether in music or word or paints must have a multiplicity of notes or words or colors, yet all together used toward the one message of a song or story or painting are seen as one whole.

"The whole is greater than the sum of its parts," mused Aristotle. Indeed, we can look at or perceive each part separately, and do - the wind section distinct from the brass, the yellow in contrast to the red, the one glowing phrase that may stand out from a piece of writing - "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times," for example. Yet who is more content with the painting White on White - should this very post be composed of only one letter? - than with gazing upon any composition by Monet, or to have harmony without the melody? Who, in admiring a poem or song would, after the first reading, go back to a single line or single glowing word, and not always think of it in the beauty of its setting? It is in the context of the whole that the parts are made lovely. The line above from Dickens is often quoted, yet is most sublime to the one who knows the story that follows it.

The talent of a Fred Astaire is in the many taps together and every move - one tap or dance step by itself is only lovely because we know what happens when all are put together by the master!

So it is and so it remains. The Lord of All Himself is Elohim - Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and we are made in His image. It is no wonder then that we who are His creatures, and all that we create as men, follows this divine order!

When God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone," He added not another Adam, but his Eve. Amen.

[.30Carbine]

My prayer is to be like a diamond, i.e. that His Light may shine through me unobstructed.

Amen.

[Forest Keeper]

FK: "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.

Yes, collectively. So at this point we have established your view as being that the collective Church is infallible, and the Bible (by itself) is not, since I said "ONLY infallible earthly authority".

FK: "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.

I meant individual Apostle vs. individual Father. In response to my supposition that any individual book of the Bible could be riddled with error, you said in 430 :

Just as the First (Old) Covenant was not protected from corruption, nothing else that deals with us is.

I took this to mean that your view was that the individual books of the Bible, or more importantly, the individual authors, were NOT infallibly protected from corruption, just as individual Fathers were not. I took you to mean that whatever corruption IS in the Bible can only be corrected through Church interpretation.

Also, I DO acknowledge and appreciate the Orthodox doctrine that the laity MUST approve of consensus patrum holdings for them to be in force.

The Fathers also never claimed to be inspired. The Church 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.

Well, I did specifically ask what "inspired" means to you... :) Your saying that the Fathers must agree with scripture (as opposed to the other way around) does not seem to match your earlier statements. On the one hand we have scripture, which is subject to error. On the other we have a consensus patrum which is infallible when in agreement with the laity. Why would the infallible follow that which is fallible? It wouldn't since the Church's job is to correct the errors in the scriptures.

There can be no contradiction or doubt [between consensus patrum and scripture].

Certainly not when one defines the other! :)

FK: "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.'

I can only name two, Kosta and Kawaii. :) My hypo is new and only based on both of your collective comments on this thread. You both have held, in one way or another, that parts of the scripture are flawed. You also hold that the Church as a whole is not flawed. Since the Orthodox do not believe that the Bible interprets itself, that puts the Church higher. I agree that this is not what I have been taught on other threads.

FK: "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.

How am I wrong? You just repeated what I said. :) It goes back to my original comparison about what I think you are saying. Individual Fathers or Apostles are subject to error, but the group as a whole is not. I disagree because I do not think the individual writings of the Apostles (or any other Biblical writers) were subject to error.

The Protestant mindset is just the opposite: the individual is right; the group is wrong.

If that was really true then we would have hundreds of millions of denominations instead of the small handful of truly Christian ones that actually exist. There can be no doubt that I have been influenced by what "a" group has held. Yes, I do believe the Spirit does lead all of us on an individual basis, AND, I marvel at how close I am on so many issues with other Protestants, considering if the starting point was "anything goes", as some like to portray it. I don't think that was the starting point. The starting point was God and His word.

Constitution by itself is nothing unless it is interpreted correctly. That's why we have trained judges along with checks and balances. ...... 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.

Really? What qualifications do you think are needed to interpret the Constitution correctly? Does one have to be a judge? Does one even have to be a lawyer? The Constitution says "No". While no non-lawyers have ever served on the high court, several non-judges have. They include John Marshall, William Rehnquist, Felix Frankfurter, and Louis Brandeis. In fact, 41 of 110 were never judges prior to sitting on the Court. Constitutionally, you really don't even have to be able to read. In the same way, every believer IS qualified to interpret the Bible as the Holy Spirit leads. You don't have to be a priest or a minister, or even a seminary graduate. You only have to be a believer. You make a good comparison. :)

[DungeonMaster]

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

I've never met an RC that didn't loathe the idea of election.

[kawaii]

I took this to mean that your view was that the individual books of the Bible, or more importantly, the individual authors, were NOT infallibly protected from corruption, just as individual Fathers were not. I took you to mean that whatever corruption IS in the Bible can only be corrected through Church interpretation.

I think this is a mischaracterization. The Orthodox only view the councils (where the whole church has gathered in the presence of the Holy Spirit) as infailable, and even councils have been failable to the extent that latter councils have sometimes changed the rulings of previous ones. The Holy Spirit is critical here. We find it quite likely that when the whole church gatherers together the Holy Spirit does not ignore the church (Christ said he'd send his church the Holy Spirit after all). We don't find it to be at all a given that a single person reading the Bible or a single person who happens to be Bishop of Rome are individually infailable or individually given to infailably be guided by the Holy Spirit.

[Alex Murphy]

I've never met an RC that didn't loathe the idea of election.

How does that support your earlier point ("Calvinism threads certainly exclude RCs")?

[DungeonMaster]

It doesn't. Now that I think about it nothing excludes RCs. Which doesn't seem fair does it.

[Alex Murphy]

It doesn't. Now that I think about it nothing excludes RCs. Which doesn't seem fair does it.

Outside of using the "caucus" designation, how else would you like to see RCs excluded from public discussion - and how would that be fair?

[DungeonMaster]

I don't remember seeing a protestant caucus. Have you ever seen one?

[Alex Murphy]

I don't remember seeing a protestant caucus. Have you ever seen one?

I see them all the time. As recently as last week, as a matter of fact...

[DungeonMaster]

Sure enough, there are some. Maybe I didn't notice them because they are fairly rare and no one posts to them. Meanwhile a good RC vs P thread can get thousands of posts.

[Alex Murphy]

Sure enough, there are some. Maybe I didn't notice them because they are fairly rare and no one posts to them.

Then I would suggest you start posting to them, or even offering up a few of your own.