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

[ScubieNuc]

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?

I wouldn't say that is the ONLY doctrinal unity, but I would say that that is the main one.

The Apostles Creed was an early example of trying to lay out the main doctrinal issues for new converts to the Church in Rome around 200 A.D.. The basis of most of the Creed comes from Scripture. When people couldn't all have access to Scripture, a Creed was something people could memorize and keep in mind. Now we have access to Scripture, so our doctrinal unity can be found in there.

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.

First, where is there confusion on whether or not Jesus was God? It's pretty clear from Scripture that Jesus was God. If a person doesn't accept that, I can't see how they would be part of the Body of Christ or the "invisible Church."

Second, Eternal Security, free will, etc. are minor doctrines. I am not a TULIP Calvinist, but I have brothers and sisters in Christ who believe that way. Believing you were pre-selected before the foundation of the Earth to be saved is not required for salvation. Look at the thief on the cross beside Jesus. What he knew and what he did weren't that much, but he believed that Jesus was God and he is in Paradise today.

Third, I believe you over paint with the word confusion. Corinthians says that we now see through a glass darkly. (1 Cor. 13:12) The Apostle Paul didn't have every answer and he relayed to the Church at Corinth that some things will remain a mystery until we see God face to face.

Does that mean that there will be confusion? Yes, but not on the main issue of salvation. Does that mean that God authored confusion? NO! Confusion was authored by Satan and brought about as the consequence of sin. What God wants us to do in these times of confusion is to 1)Study his Word for answers, 2)Pray for guidance, 3)Join with others to learn and share, and 4)to rely on God for strenth.

Sincerely

[Quix]

INDEED.

Well put.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you both for sharing your testimonies and insights!

I see nothing amiss with a Christian wanting to retain his personality. And I pray that such Christians in return will see nothing amiss in the desire of some of us to be transparent in Him.

[Quix]

SURE.

Though I do NOT see a dichotomy where you see one.

There is mystery. But I don't see a dichotomy--at least not a necessary, absolute one.

Perhaps a seeming one from a given perspective.


LUB,
THX

[Quix]

I have

BEEN IN THE INTENSE MOMENTS, PERIODS OF GOD'S INTENSE PRESENCE such that . . . it appears, y'all would describe it as an obliteration of one's personality and God shining through utterly purely to the total overwhelming, wiping out of one's personality.

But I didn't experience it that way. If my focus had been of a certain sort--as it was at different moments in such experiences--I could have agreed. But over all--wasn't like that. My personality was enhanced and enlivened vs obliterated.

I don't know if it is like the wave/particle aspect of light, or not. Though I'm reminded of a recent thread where scientists have not verified that light is both waves and particles all the time--independent of observations. Perhaps it's like that but a given sort of observation can seem to indicate only one reality and a dichotomy where none exists.

LUB,

[Forest Keeper]

The Orthodox only view the councils (where the whole church has gathered in the presence of the Holy Spirit) as infallible, and even councils have been fallible to the extent that latter councils have sometimes changed the rulings of previous ones.

My understanding of Orthodoxy is that what you believe today is exactly what you have always and everywhere believed. This would prohibit councils from overruling prior ones. Is this incorrect?

[Quix]

CORRECTION:

Though I'm reminded of a recent thread where scientists have NOW verified that light is both waves and particles all the time--

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your excellent posts! Truly it is not a case of one side is right and the other is wrong. Nor is it a case of either/or - because a person can have both experiences.

[Forest Keeper]

Thank you for your reply and for your clarifications. I think they cleared up some misunderstandings, especially on original texts vs. what we have today. I'm sorry I didn't realize that you were no longer active on the thread when I originally posted. I'm sure we'll have plenty of chances to continue on other threads. :)

[fortheDeclaration]

Well, it seems to be you that is moving all over the place Really? Because I never did I suggest the scriptures were generated ar random or had no purpose? That really makes lot of sense (not!).

Well, if God gave the Scripture and they are not the inventions of men, they ought to contain that same authority as God Himself.

So Chrysostom is incorrect? In his assertion that "In holy Scripture we read the words of the Prophets and Apostles precisely as if we were living with them ..." — yes.

Well, then don't go around citing Church Fathers as authority equal to Scripture then since they are all wrong about something!

Each man was revealed what happened by the Holy Spirit and wrote under His inspiration The favorite "escape clause" when logic fails, isn't it?

What logic have you displayed?

I see a lack of faith, but no logic.

The Scripture itself says that is 'given by Inspiration of God (2Tim.3:16) see also 2Pe.1:21 and Heb.4:12.

You just reject the Inspiration of Scripture Only when it is used by others as an excuse to "prove" their point.

What point is that-that they are from God?

Christianity does not depend on oral tradition... Wrong again. Christ didn't write anything (except in the sand), and His disciples preached for many years before anything was written down by them (take +John, he wrote at the end of the 1st century, and all this time he had to have preached by word of mouth only). I would call that "oral tradition."

What God wanted for the generations following the Apostles, He made sure got written and that is why we don't depend on 'oral tradition' for anything.

We have it in writing.

You just use 'oral tradition' as an excuse to reject what is written.

We are not discussing what he regarded as scripture, only that scripture were to be trusted as the perfect revelation of God. The revelation may be perfect, just like the soul God gives us is flawless. Somewhere along the line it becomes "less flawless."

Not if God promised to preserve it (Ps.12:6-7)

We are born in corruption, the word was given as pure and preserved even though sinful men attempted to corrupt it with false texts (Aleph and B) and the LXX.

We were not talking about Chrysostom in that regard, we are talking about the theologians who made up your Catechism which I cited Every Orthodox so-called 'catechism' I read was different. The EOC does NOT have an official 'catechism.'

It shows that the Orthodox theologicans disagree among themselves on the subject of scripture so stop throwing out your red herring nonsense about 'Protestant bias'.

Chrysostom was a bible-believer who believed that God had given us Scriptures that ought to be believed and obeyed. That is something that you clearly reject I reject robotoic obedience to something that was obviously havily tainted with human fancy, agendas, and errors. If we had the originals, that would be a different story.

Which means you have no authority except your own opinion which makes you a god in your own eyes. (Gen.3)

[fortheDeclaration]

I recite the Lord's Prayer rigidly written down for us by His Apostles.

LOL!

And how can you be sure that is true?

I just think you're wholesale wrong about that. God enabled Moses to do all kinds of things... Perhaps, but some parts of the Pentateuch are not very likely his writing.

Ofcourse they are, but you (the scholars) are going to tell us which are and which aren't based on....nothing.

You just pick and choose what you like in scripture and then reject what you don't-ye shall be gods.

[fortheDeclaration]

Amen to your post.

When Paul makes his confession before Agrippa he is very confident that the events Paul describes are known by him, since it did not happen, as Paul states, 'in a corner'(Acts 26:26)

[Mad Dawg]

Ueah - windows are good, so are icons. each is a different way of letting the light in.

Oh, by the way, I haven't followed this thread, but I know the answer:
Protestant Bibles have zippers, and Catholic Bibles if they ave pictures, they're guaranteed to be awful.

Do I get a prize?

[azhenfud]

You don't get out much, do you?

[Kolokotronis]

"My understanding of Orthodoxy is that what you believe today is exactly what you have always and everywhere believed. This would prohibit councils from overruling prior ones. Is this incorrect?"

On maters of dogma declared by ecumenical councils, yes that is true. There were, however, only 7 ecumenical councils and even they didn't declare a great deal of dogma. Disiciplinary canons and the declarations of non-ecumenical councils can be changed by subsequent councils.

[kosta50]

Thank you AG. You always post with love. I am not sure if keeping one's personality and serving God absolutely is possible. I guess we can only say 'wait and see.' :)

[kosta50]

My understanding of Orthodoxy is that what you believe today is exactly what you have always and everywhere believed. This would prohibit councils from overruling prior ones. Is this incorrect?

Doctrines can be expanded, not retracted. The Nicene Creed was completed over a period that spanned two Ecumenical Councils. These changes are not intended to nullify the previous, but are in response to emergence of new heresies. The belief is the same. The extent of definition is not.

The Church never retracted a doctrine. Defined it more fully, expressing the same belief in greater details, yes. Retracted, no. Some beliefs people have are not official Church doctrines, such as "Limbo" in the Catholic tradition, or the "Toll-Houses" in the Russian tradition.

If someone unfamiliar with Christianity were to ask you Who is Jesus Christ, you could simply answer "Our Lord and Savior" without going into more elaborate details.

In response to additional questions, your answer would expand depending on how involved you need to get. But your original definition must not be interpreted as your full knowledge of Who Christ is; neither should your expanded answers be interpreted as "learning as you go" but only as more fuller definitions of what you know, as required in the situation.

[kosta50]

FK, I wll always answer your posts. I have simply withdrawn from those posters who have chosen a confrontational style, resorting to bashing.

I respect other people's opinions, whether I agree with them or not. I do not respect anyone who says "burn those books" or "Catholic Bible smells funny." I am sure you know what I mean.

Now if someone says that in their opinion our sacraments are 'empty rituals' and is willing to elaborate and have a civil discussion on it, fine. No offense taken.

You will notice that I have posted to others since then, because they are respectful and civil.

[kosta50]

Ofcourse they are, but you (the scholars) are going to tell us which are and which aren't based on....nothing

Live in delusions if you so choose. Would a humble Moses call himself the humblest man on earth? If your theory is right, then he did in Num 12:3 — otherwise someone else wrote verse 3!

You just pick and choose what you like in scripture and then reject what you don't-ye shall be gods

Really? Then why don't you explain to me why does the Book of Jude, verses 14-15, (NT) quote from the Book of Enoch, I Enoch 1:9, (OT Apocrypha only in the Ethiopian Church) as if it were Scripture?

Or perhaps in Jude 9 a refreence to the non-canonical Assumption of Moses?

Or, perhaps, why Hebrews 11:37 quotes from the non-canonical The Martyrdom of Isaih?

How can uninspired books be quoted as inspired? Oh, wait, of course you wouldn't know that since your Bible doesn't contain cross references the writers of the NT used from now noncanonical books! It was good enough for the inspired writer of Jude but it's not good enough for the Christian Bible!

I don't want to waste my time giving you all the hints and answers. I think you need to do your own homework.

[Quix]

True.

I think .30Carbine's later post about light through a diamond is very instructive and enLIGHTening.

Seems to me, she articulated well from her research and the science of light bouncing around in a diamond, slower, reflecting out, showing forth the various colors . . .

ended up describing most beautifully the BOTH/AND spiritual reality I was trying (so clumsily) to articulate.

. . . to extrapolate a bit . . . maybe . . . maybe no extrapolation just an elaboration . . .

If I understand correctly . . .

--GIVEN the diamond being faceted perfectly, fittingly . . .
--GIVEN the diamond being polished perfectly . . .
--HAVING BEEN put through intense 'refiner's fires' in it's making . . .

--GIVEN GOD BEING THE DIAMOND MAKER, CUTTER, FACETER, POLISHER . . . As the author and finisher of our faith and of us . . .

THEN, THEREFORE,

GIVEN that God IS the PERFECT diamond maker, cutter, faceter, polisher . . . and so to speak, all the 'easier' when we cooperate out of love wholesale . . .

HE WILL SHINE THROUGH US PERFECTLY UNFETTERED, UNHINDERED . . .

AND

IN HIS DOING SO, THE PERSONALITY HE CREATED US TO EXHIBIT, WALK IN AS THE UNIQUE EXPRESSIONS !OF HIM! HE CREATED US TO BE . . .

WILL SHINE forth brilliantly in all the varied colors, sequences and combinations of colored fire and brilliance He designed us to manifest, exhibit, display as aspects of His Glory.

imho, of course.