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

[kosta50]

Although I have withdrawn from this thread, I will answer you because, unlike many others, you at least accept different views as someone's right and do not take it as a a right to bash and insult.

So at this point we have established your view as being that the collective Church is infallible, and the Bible (by itself) is not

No. Two heads are better than one. The collective knowledge of the Church is better than the individual knowledge of one person. Thus, we believe that the Apostolic Church Christ left behind, collectively, is protected by the Holy Spirit. Individual interpretations of the Bible is not.

Thus when kawaii and I or any Orthodox or Catholic speak on the subject, we express an opinion which is just that, and which may or may not agree with what the Church teaches and how the Church collectively interprets. Neither kawaii nor I are official spokesmen for the Church.

St. Gregory of Nyssa believed, like his mentor Origen, in universal salvation. The Church never taught universal salvation. St. Augustine taught that the Jews were the descendants of Cain, and therefore under the curse.

Clearly, this does not affect his theology that so many Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox find agreeable. Even the Church Fathers were fallible. The Apostles, being human, were also fallible. The scriptures they wrote were not.

We also believe, as the Protestants do, that the Scriptures were inspired by God. The inspiration and the message is infallible; human rendition of it is not, save for the originals which are no longer extant.

We know that there are copies of copies and that these copies have many, many versions, many copying errors, using different words, etc., and even that some of the purported "scriptures" are really forgeries (take for example Aquila's, Theodotion's and Symmachus' Greek Old Testaments).

We also know that neither one of us is inspired and that our individual readings of the Bible are influenced by our fallen nature, our corruption (prejudices, opinions, cultures, experiences, etc.) and are therefore subject to be erroneous interpretations.

We therefore defer to the collective understanding of the whole Church rather than make an individual a "church" unto itself. We believe that the Church is a community that prays together ans eats together of the same spiritual food and believes one and the same thing. A true believer must accept that God's

I took you to mean that whatever corruption IS in the Bible can only be corrected through Church interpretation.

No, the Church does not correct the Bible. The Church holds on to the faith that was given and maintains it through the Holy Tradition taught from the beginning. Thus, it is independent of trends, changing cultural norms, and individual human preferences and opinions. It can discern which copying error or linguistic error is inconsistent with that faith, and assumes that whoever committed the error by copying, agenda, or neglect is not what was delivered to the inspired authors originally by the Spirit.

Thus the Church could separate the wheat from the chaff when it came to various 'gosepls' floating around in the 2nd century AD and select 22 genuine works from the 200-plus scrolls known at that time.

It only means that the Church, collectively, interprets the Scriptures correctly, not that the Church corrects errors in the (original) Scriptures.

I you were to read in an Italian newspaper that Americans drive on the left you'd immediately know this to be an error because you know this is not true. The reasons for that error are a different story, but you'd now that the error originated in the process of printing/editing. Thus you would be justified is rejecting it as truth.

If you were to read that in America we call gasoline 'petrol' you would know it to be wrong as well. Again, the reasons for such error are a different matter, but the lack of veracity of the usage of 'petrol' would never be in question.

It wouldn't since the Church's job is to correct the errors in the scriptures

Based on what I just outlined before, I can say you are wrong. Protestant refusal to admit that copying errors and other factors resulted in numerous variants and errors in the Bible is dumbfounding to Orthodox and Catholics. Their conclusion that recognizing such omissions is 'correcting' the Scriptures is likewise.

iI 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

If one sees the same movie, they will have similar opinions about it. There will be a few on each fringe who will have experienced it unlike the majority, but most people will have some sort of general consensus on the content. That does not mean it's the work of the Holy Spirit.

God reminds us not to use His Holy Name in vain. I would be very careful in claiming the Spirit every time I wanted to make my interpretations and opinions "authoritative."

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

We only have copies of the copies of what they wrote. Just as I believe the souls we receive from God are pristine, so was His message that moves the apostles to write. Somewhere along the line our souls become darkened and copies of the originals contain known errors, conceptually, theologically, linguistically, culturally, etc.

I can only name two, Kosta and Kawaii. :) My hypo is new and only based on both of your collective comments on this thread

Neither he nor I would ever confuse our opinions with what the Church says. If we quote the Church doctrine, we make that clear. St. Augustine said all sorts of things, but in the end he deferred to the Catholic Church. he never once thought he was better or even equal to the Church as a whole.

What qualifications do you think are needed to interpret the Constitution correctly? Does one have to be a judge?

Yes. It makes no difference if you can read it. It makes no difference if you are 'qualified' to read it. What mater is the position you have been appointed to.

You can study medicine on your own and be able to even pass the licensure boards, but unless you have actually met the requirements (attended a recognized medical school, received an MD/DO diploma), passed the boards, and received a license to practice medicine and surgery you MAY NOT diagnose and treat.

Unless you are an appointed/elected judge, you may not rule what is constitutional and what is not. Your opinions simply don't count. You can agree or disagree with the official interpretation, but your opinion and a $1 will buy you a cup of coffee.

[FourtySeven]

Whoops, you're right, I should have said the "Southern Baptist Convention" instead of the "American Baptist Church" in #2. The SBC adheres to OSAS.

I don't believe the rest do though, at least explicitly, at least not according to their websites.

[Alex Murphy]

Whoops, you're right, I should have said the "Southern Baptist Convention" instead of the "American Baptist Church" in #2. The SBC adheres to OSAS.

Nope - you've missed it completely. Try again.

[FourtySeven]

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.

Ok, then maybe I'm mistaken about the entire thing. It seemed Alex Murphy was rebelling against my list that pointed out differences between some mainstream Protestant denominations, and I thought he was doing so because he believed this "invisible church" had no major doctrinal differences.

But is the point now that the "invisible church" has no doctrinal unity except belief in Jesus Christ as Lord? Is that your point, ScubieNuc? If that's the case then I simply submit that I could never believe in such a concept. I could never believe that God would want His Church filled with confusion on whether or not His Son is God, or whether or not OSAS is true, or whether or not we have free will.

We can agree to disagree if that's the point here. I just could never accept a Church filled with such confusion, personally speaking.

[FourtySeven]

Nope - you've missed it completely. Try again.

I do not play games. Tell me what you object to, or else I see no point in going back and forth about this.

Or, if you believe as ScubieNuc does, then perhaps my post to the both of you would be more profitable.

[wmfights]

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

Right now there is a very interesting discussion going on about Christian Zionism that does not have any interest by RC's or EO. IOW, the threads are there you just have to look for them. ;-)

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your encouragements! Ditto on the prayer for help.

[Alamo-Girl]

Sounds good, but the "ideal" state so many of us hope to attain is to become completely transparent, so as not to be even noticed, in order for God's light to shine through us unimpeded. In other words, we become invisible. So, it really will not matter what color He assigned us to begin with. We will be indistinguishable from the air (our egos will cease to exist, and with them our personalities too).

Whereas you and I evidently have the goal of becoming transparent in Him so that His Light will shine through us, unobstructed - truly I believe many, if not most, of our brothers and sisters in Christ choose to retain a self-will or personality.

And that is the beautiful Truth I see in the foundation gemstone metaphor of the New Jerusalem: we do not all have to be alike.

You and I can choose to be like John. Others can choose to be like Peter, or Paul, or James and so on. And it is altogether beautiful.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for sharing the email!

BTW, a family member in the Netherlands used to send us a chocolate letter for the first initial of our names every year for Christmas. She said that was a tradition in the Netherlands.

[Alamo-Girl]

What a beautiful essay-post, dear sister in Christ! Thank you!

[Quix]

Thanks for your encouragements.

vis a vis personality etc.

I believe that the closer we get to God; the more yielded we become to God; the more pure channels we become FOR God . . . that ALSO CONCURRENTLY, THE MORE WE BECOME THE PERSONALITIES !!!!GOD!!!! MADE US.

I do not believe that choosing to walk thoroughly submitted unto God and flowing in His Spirit means that we have our personalities removed, obliterated, blocked out, overwhelmed out; lain aside etc.

I do not believe that 100% submitting our wills to God's will; 100% choosing God's ways, will, choices etc. will result in our personalities being obliterated, lain aside.

I also believe that the best and truly only person we can chose to be wholesale effectively LIKE is the ONE PERSONALITY, INDIVIDUAL GOD MADE US TO BE. We may mimic John, Paul etc. in some respects but never fully.

I believe that Christ can fully express Himself through us as us and that AS HE DOES SO; WHEN HE DOES SO--HE ALSO CAUSES OUR PERSONALITIES TO GROW IN HIM AND BE MORE FULLY FUNCTIONING AS OUR PERSONALITY WAS DESIGNED BY FATHER TO BE AND TO FUNCTION.

imho, of course.

[Quix]

Beautiful. Thanks for saying so.

[Quix]

LOL.

ROTFLOL.

Do you HONESTLY consider JW's and LDS

MAINSTREAM

Protestant denominations???

What a curious dictionary you have, if so.

[Mad Dawg]

God made a jewel which shone with His light.

Satan shattered it, never realizing that when God was done, there would just be more jewels corruscating and gleaming and dazzling with God's light.

When God made you, He did a good thing. When he redeemed you, was that good thing obliterated? I don't think so.

Dawg parable: In the Freer collection in DC there is a tea bowl of raku type appearance. But it was dropped and broken into about 5 pieces. The tea master repaired it with clear lacquer into which he mixed gold dust. The old unbroken tea bowl was nice enough. The repaired bowl takes your breath away, and yet you know what the old bowl looked like. The repaired bowl is not generic bowl. It is entirely itself, and glorious!

[Quix]

WONDERFUL IMAGES, TRUTHS, REALITIES, METAPHORS

THE REAL AUTHENTIC . . . TRUTH.

THE REAL "THING."

Thanks TONS.

LUB

[Quix]

I also believe that the best and truly only person we can chose to be wholesale effectively LIKE is the ONE PERSONALITY, INDIVIDUAL GOD MADE US TO BE. We may mimic John, Paul etc. in some respects but never fully.

. . .

I also have observed and experienced . . .

That OCCASIONALLY, while God may encourage us . . . like Paul to follow him AS HE FOLLOWED CHRIST . . . for a season of growth; overcoming a particular problem; learning a particular discipline; . . .

THAT ON THE WHOLE, AT SOME POINT, God will throw a very thorough and effective monkey wrench in the midst of:

1. anyone trying to conform some one else to person "A's" image.

2. anyone trying to conform themselves to anyone's image other than that of Jesus The Christ.

I've observed (and experienced) some of God's harshest rebukes in such matters.

[FourtySeven]

The point of my list was to demonstrate that at least 2 Protestant denominations differ significantly in doctrine, thus demolishing the concept (if anyone ever even suggests it, which I'm not sure anyone does anymore) of a "doctrinally unified invisible church".

So, I'll say to you: Pick and choose (and call) any of the list "cults" that you want, but I'm certain that at least SOME from the list everyone can agree are Protestant denominations.

If anyone says that not any but one of the denominations listed are not Protestant and/or mainstream, then one has automatically set one denomination above another, and thus, chosen that one denomination is superior to another. This also disproves the notion of an "invisible church".

If one says that the "invisible church" is not unified doctrinally, then, as I said previously, I cannot accept that concept, since to me, the church, whether visible or invisible, should at LEAST be doctrinally united. I cannot accept anything less, since it's Scripture itself that prevents me from doing so, when we read, "Not everyone who calls me 'Lord, Lord' shall enter the Kingdom". This clearly implies there will be doctrinal differences among people (not the church) and thus, the church, whether invisible or visible must be at LEAST doctrinally unified.

[Mad Dawg]

I always tell people (if they ask)

God loves the you you are, not the you you aren't. About the only limitation I can confidently say there is in God's love is that He doesn't love what isn't.

Early in my (official, collar-wearing) ministry I wanted more than anything to be a window. As time went by, I saw that at least in preaching I would have to settle for being an Icon. An Icon is very much there, but the faithful can see through it, and they see THROUGH it by looking AT it. A window you just look through.

We wouldn't say that Jesus had no personality, would we? It seems to me with the broad humor (Hey, YOU! You got a log in your eye!) and penetrating exchanges with people, you get the sense there was somebody there.

No disrespect to tenors, but this is why Bach was right to have Jesus sung by a Bass in The Matthew Passion.

[Quix]

The

INVISIBLE CHURCH

of all believers who believe Jesus The Christ came in the flesh; was born of a virgin; died for our sins; rose again; is coming again . . . the basics

is AT LEAST

AS

UNIFIED

in doctrine . . . .

as the many factions within the RC church are.

That's Just a fact.

[Quix]

Love it. Thanks.