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

[Quix]

Excellent points, as usual.

Thx.

[Quix]

Thx.

The prize . . . healed feet?

[Alamo-Girl]

LOLOL!

You might enjoy reading .30Carbine's post on the subject, which she posted to another thread but is relevant here. An excerpt:

I came across an interesting Web page with information on these things - color and light and the speed and direction of it through gemstones! Among other things I learned that...

Diamond plays this reflecting trick better than any other colorless substance. Light enters a faceted gemstone from all sides, but it may bounce back and forth several times inside before it finds a clean, straight shot out. All this changing direction accomplishes something very dramatic, because so-called white light actually contains all of the rainbow's colors. Each color - red, orange, yellow, green, blue, and violet - bends and reflects inside the diamond slightly differently. The farther the light travels, the more the colors separate, or "disperse." Bounce light inside a diamond just two or three times and the colors disperse spectacularly.

Putting this info together with what the Lord of All has been speaking to me from other sources, His Word mostly, but also with your many musings here, I am beginning to conclude that the time we chosen ones spend receiving/perceiving/listening/observing all that comes into our lives (call it "the light"), and then cogitating or meditating or praying on or about what we have received, and what to do with it, has direct and significant persuasion upon what will then come out of these vessels we call our selves.

"Meditate upon these things," commands the Holy Word, and James exhorts us to be "quick to listen, slow to speak," and these together fit the picture of how the light bouncing all the more times within the gem produces all the more glory when it emerges. I like that.

An uncut diamond (or any of the variety of gemstones) receives and reflects light rays far differently than the polished jewel - could we call one saved and the other as yet unfound, encased as it is within its hard and ugly outer shell? Each uncovered and polished gemstone in their many varieties of color, hue, size, and number of facets will act and react very uniquely to the one source of light shining upon and into the very heart of all.

The Blue Diamond Web site linked above also declared this interesting truth:

Light pokes along inside a diamond at less than 80,000 miles per second. That's more than 100,000 miles per second slower than in air.

Tremendous wisdom in this metaphor, .30Carbine - and on the rest of your post. Would you consider reposting it here?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your encouragements!

I am not sure if keeping one's personality and serving God absolutely is possible. I guess we can only say 'wait and see.'

In my humble opinion, once a person has experienced even a moment of being transparent in God's Light, he will never be whole again in any other state. But alas, we are mere mortals and thus easily distracted - so we have to be ever diligently removing the weeds in our lives.

[Quix]

what you believe today is exactly what you have always and everywhere believed.
= = =

Pondering . . . I wonder . . .

Given that humans are ESSENTIALLY the same. Eternal truths are eternal truths . . . particularly about human nature, human inclinations, habits, behaviors . . . rebellions, idolatries . . . relating or not to God Almighty etc.

Yet . . . is it possible to believe precisely what was always believed.

ESSENTIALLY, I think it is, but precisely, I think is beyond us.

1. Culture and cultural reality changes. The meanings of words change because the reality has changed.

For example, in industrialized countries, WORK does not mean what it meant 2,000 years ago, for most people. Certainly not for computer programmers or day traders etc.

TRANSPORTATION, TRAVEL does not mean what it meant. KNOWLEDGE does not mean what it meant. AUTHORITY does not mean what it meant.

2. There's whole robust layers of gestalt around each concept, word, reality--all those layers are at least SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT than they were 50 years ago, 250, 500, 2000 years ago.

So, automatically, our beliefs written, experienced and understood in those words--our beliefs are inherently SOMEWHAT different. I doubt in any essential sense--but in complexion, flavor, 'clothing,' . . . and it does effect behavior to some degree.

But I think AT THE HEART LEVEL, THE ESSENTIALS ARE STILL THE ESSENTIALS.

3. I think that's one reason Christ's (A) LOVE GOD WHOLLY; (B) NEIGHBOR AS SELF; (C) DO UNTO OTHERS . . . all from the heart . . . ARE the ESSENTIAL GOSPEL, THE ESSENTIAL DOCTRINES.

4. There's no weaseling about those from the heart. One either does or does not or does to whatever degree. God knows it and somewhere inside, the honest person knows it.

5. All the other accoutraments and details that all the historical squabbles are interminably about will likely, essentially have been for naught. God will still be checking to see

IN EACH INDIVIDUAL'S MOMENT BY MOMENT CASE . . . DID THEY DEMONSTRATE WHOLLY LOVING ME; LOVING OTHERS AS SELF; DOING UNTO OTHERS; DID THEY FORGIVE AS THEY SOUGHT TO BE FORGIVEN; DID THEY DO AS THEY SAID.

I'm skeptical that ANYthing else will matter significantly.

The denominational 'water fights' (since I can't put it more accurately in the religion forum LOL) will turn out to be either black marks because of the motives of the hearts involved . . . or just such utter chaff as to be totally inconsequential.

imho.

[Quix]

INDEED.

Thanks for the ping.

[Marysecretary]

Thanks, Forest Keeper. Yes, that's exactly what I was saying. Christ, not theology, is what's necessary. Anyone, no matter what race, creed, color, can come to Christ through receiving Him into their lives with a sincere heart. Thinking one has to be of a certain theological bent to be saved is a lie from the pit of hell. One of my dear elderly friends is a christian believer who once was mormon. It doesn't matter what they were or even what they were taught. CHRIST is supreme, not theology.

[Marysecretary]

Are you dense or what? I don't know what your church teaches about Christ but born again believers KNOW that Jesus is the ONLY way, not church theology, but a relationship with the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords. It doesn't matter if one is a mormon, a JW, RCC, EO or what. That person can be saved and have a living relationship with God through Jesus Christ if that person repents and turns his or her life over to Christ. They usually leave that church to find one that is a Bible believing church but not always. God has some stay to be a light to others caught up in 'theology.'Cheez.

[Marysecretary]

AMEN, silverlings. Thanks.

[Marysecretary]

I think pot is calling kettle black here...

[wmfights]

There were, however, only 7 ecumenical councils and even they didn't declare a great deal of dogma.

I am assuming Nicea was an ecumenical council. Who decided who should go and who couldn't go to Nicea? How was the council of Nicea paid for? Who opened the council and presided over it?

[Alamo-Girl]

GMTA! We were both thinking about .30Carbine's excellent post.

I can agree with all of your points except for one:

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

The Light doesn't shine through an onyx or agate - it is reflected off the surface. And yet both are among the New Jerusalem foundation stones along with the Jasper which is clear. And stones like the amethyst absorb or alter some of the light as it passes through. The amethyst, too, is a foundation gemstone of New Jerusalem.

I assert this means that all types are according to God's will - but not every gemstone (or Christian) participates the same way in His Light.

Hebrews 1:3 tells us that Christ is the brightness of the Father's glory. We cannot magnify the Father's glory in this way, but we can be participants in His Light. And that thrills me to no end!

[Quix]

Fitting point. Pondering . . .

How about:

HE WILL . . . IN HABIT US, TEMPLE IN US . . . at some point . . .

such that

HE WILL SHINE THROUGH US/BE REFLECTED IN US PERFECTLY AS HE DESIGNED IT TO BE SO.

He doesn't do things less than perfectly--whether designing us, shaping us, refining us, faceting us, polishing us . . .

HE WILL PRESENT US BLAMELESS BEFORE THE FATHER . . . and I construe that to mean His maturing of us will be perfect, too.

GIVEN THAT . . . as bride components without spot or wrinkle . . .

HIS GLORY WILL BE MANIFESTED IN AND THROUGH US FLAWLESSLY.

And in the process, our PERSONALITIES will be MORE US vs less us.

[Alamo-Girl]

Indeed. Thank you!

And in the process, our PERSONALITIES will be MORE US vs less us.

In my case, it is clearly less. The person I am after being indwelled by the Spirit is nothing at all like the person I was. I was entirely unlovable, mean, self-serving, rude, vain ... you wouldn't have been comfortable around "me."

[kawaii]

Character and purpose

To most bishops, the teachings of Arius were heretical and a danger to the salvation of souls. In the summer of 325, the bishops of all provinces were summoned to Nicaea (now known as ?znik, in modern-day Turkey), a place easily accessible to the majority of them, particularly those of Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Greece, and Thrace.

Approximately 300 bishops attended, from every region of the Empire except Britain. This was the first general council in the history of the Church since the Apostolic Council of Jerusalem, which had established the conditions upon which Gentiles could join the Church.[4] In the Council of Nicaea, “the Church had taken her first great step to define doctrine more precisely in response to a challenge from a heretical theology.”[5] The resolutions in the council, being ecumenical, were intended for the whole Church.
[edit]Attendees

All 1800 bishops of the Christian church were invited (about 1000 in the east and 800 in the west), but only 250 to 320 bishops actually participated. Eusebius of Caesarea counted 250,[6] Athanasius of Alexandria counted 318,[7] and Eustathius of Antioch counted 270[8] (all three were present at the council). Later, Socrates Scholasticus recorded more than 300,[9] and Evagrius,[10] Hilarius,[11] Jerome[12] and Rufinus recorded 318.

The participating bishops were given free travel to and from their episcopal sees to the council, as well as lodging. These bishops did not travel alone; each one had permission to bring with him two priests and three deacons; so the total number of attendees would have been above 1500. Eusebius speaks of an almost innumerable host of accompanying priests, deacons and acolytes.

A special prominence was also attached to this council because the persecution of Christians had just ended with the February 313 Edict of Milan .

The Eastern bishops formed the great majority. Of these, the first rank was held by the three patriarchs: Alexander of Alexandria, Eustathius of Antioch, and Macarius of Jerusalem. Many of the assembled fathers — for instance, Paphnutius of Thebes, Potamon of Heraclea and Paul of Neocaesarea — had stood forth as witnesses of the faith and came to the council with the marks of persecution on their faces.

Other remarkable attendees were Eusebius of Nicomedia; Eusebius of Caesarea; Nicholas of Myra; Aristakes of Armenia; Leontius of Caesarea; Jacob of Nisibis, a former hermit; and Spyridion of Trimythous, who even while a bishop made his living as a shepherd. From foreign places came a Persian bishop John, a Gothic bishop Theophilus and Stratophilus, bishop of Pitiunt in Egrisi (located at the border of modern-day Russia and Georgia outside of the Roman Empire).

The Latin-speaking provinces sent at least five representatives: Marcus of Calabria from Italia, Cecilian of Carthage from Africa, Hosius of Córdoba from Hispania, Nicasius of Dijon from Gaul, and Domnus of Stridon from the province of the Danube. Pope Silvester I declined to attend, pleading infirmity, but he was represented by two priests.

Athanasius of Alexandria, a young deacon and companion of Bishop Alexander of Alexandria, was among these assistants. Athanasius eventually spent most of his life battling against Arianism. Alexander of Constantinople, then a presbyter, was also present as representative of his aged bishop.
"Resplendent in purple and gold, Constantine made a ceremonial entrance at the opening of the council, probably in early June, but respectfully seated the bishops ahead of himself."[4] As Eusebius described, Constantine "himself proceeded through the midst of the assembly, like some heavenly messenger of God, clothed in raiment which glittered as it were with rays of light, reflecting the glowing radiance of a purple robe, and adorned with the brilliant splendor of gold and precious stones."[13] He was present as an observer, but he did not vote. Constantine organized the Council along the lines of the Roman Senate. "Ossius [Hosius] presided over its deliberations; he probably, and the two priests of Rome certainly, came as representatives of the Pope."[4] “Eusebius of Nicomedia probably gave the welcoming address."[4]

[Kolokotronis]

"I am assuming Nicea was an ecumenical council."

It was. Its where the Creed comes from, at least most of it.

"Who decided who should go and who couldn't go to Nicea?"

All the Christian bishops were invited because the main issue at hand was dealing with Arianism which was being preched by more than a few bishops.

"How was the council of Nicea paid for?"

I haven't a clue. Maybe at second collection at Sunday liturgies? A tax on goats?

"Who opened the council and presided over it?"

I believe the Emperor Constantine may have presided over the opening session. I know he called the Council. At least after the first session, it was presided over by +Hosius, the Bishop of Cordova and +Alexander, the Pat. of Alexandria. Interestingly, Constantine had very definite personal Arian leanings and sympathies (though he recognized the trouble Arius was causing in The Church) but the Council came down firmly against Arianism.

[Quix]

In my case, it is clearly less. The person I am after being indwelled by the Spirit is nothing at all like the person I was. I was entirely unlovable, mean, self-serving, rude, vain ... you wouldn't have been comfortable around "me."
= = =

AHHHHHHHH, BUT DEAR HEART!

THAT was not THE YOU, THAT GOD DESIGNED.

That was the God designed you wholesale polluted and infected through and through with satan's pernicious sin stains and mangling, distorting corruptions.

As you well know, THE BLOOD 'Cloroxes' all that out.

Especially as we cooperate with Holy Spirit in the recovery and return to OUR DESIGN PARAMETERS.

Goodness! Was never talking about the sin polluted versions.

[Quix]

In my case, it is clearly less. The person I am after being indwelled by the Spirit is nothing at all like the person I was. I was entirely unlovable, mean, self-serving, rude, vain ... you wouldn't have been comfortable around "me."
= = =

AHHHHHHHH, BUT DEAR HEART!

THAT was not THE YOU, THAT GOD DESIGNED.

That was the God designed you wholesale polluted and infected through and through with satan's pernicious sin stains and mangling, distorting corruptions.

As you well know, THE BLOOD 'Cloroxes' all that out.

Especially as we cooperate with Holy Spirit in the recovery and return to OUR DESIGN PARAMETERS.

Goodness! Was never talking about the sin polluted versions.

AT LEAST NOT IN THEIR MOSTLY sinFUL states.

NO! BUT AS THE REDEEMED--A BRIDE WITHOUT SPOT OR WRINKLE.

Have I been that poor at communicating??

[kawaii]

IIRC Constantine made a big speech at the opening but did not preside (there's 4 folks who may have presided). There's no record of Constantine presiding, and he wasn't even present after the first day.

I beleive Constantine offered to cover the travel expenses of all the invited bishops.

[Kolokotronis]

"IIRC Constantine made a big speech at the opening but did not preside (there's 4 folks who may have presided). There's no record of Constantine presiding, and he wasn't even present after the first day."

You are right. I stand corrested.

"I beleive Constantine offered to cover the travel expenses of all the invited bishops."

I like the tax on goats idea better! :)