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]

Scripture is quite clear. We shall JUDGE ANGELS

Really? And why? The angels that rebelled have already been judged.

And, evidently they have some sort of more 'automatic' obedience built-in--perhaps some sort of 'more transparent nature' for God's glory to shine through less impeded than we in our current earthly state

Evidently 1/3 od all angels has a 'defect' in their 'automatic' built-in obedience. Our current earthly state is not how we were created.

[Alamo-Girl]

It is Scriptural:

Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?

Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?

If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. - I Cor 6:1-4

[FourtySeven]

Thanks for the reply. This is pretty much what I've encountered before when asking the direct question, "What are the essiential doctrines for Christians", to someone who wasn't Catholic/Orthodox.

When I started to believe in God again in 1999, this was one chief question for me, and I got many answers as you gave. Some different. One that was common to all was, (ironically), "And this is the way I see it. I don't think it's that important others believe EXACTLY as I do though". Which was curious to me, since I was asking about doctrines, something I thought was a serious matter, something I've always believed, by the very defintion of the word, could not change. In other words, something that SHOULD be exactly the same, for all Christians.

This is one key reason I cannot be a Protestant. At the end of the day, at least the Orthodox/Catholics say, "We believe we are right for EVERYONE, not just 'us'", IOW, they state that doctrines really ARE "non-negotiable". I find this claim of stability re-assuring, if not realistic, after all, if there really aren't any hard and fast doctrines, then what's the point of having all the denominations?

[kosta50]

Would Adam and Eve have not been different had they not fallen? You call that Paradise?

So, do we exist for His pleasure or ours? What makes you think that our physical wellbeing is the only 'happiness' possible?

Thomas Merton [New Seeds of Contemplation] says in "Hell and Hatred"

When we love God's will we find Him and own His joy in all things. But when we are against God, that is, when we love ourselves more than Him, all things become our enemies.

Does that necessarily mean that every difference between humans is a result of the Fall?

Yes, anything that takes away from loving God with all out heart, mind and soul 24/7 is a result of the Fall.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

We agree that "cookie-cutter" is wrong, certainly, but correct doctrine matters, don't you think? Is God glofified in error?

"And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God." -- Romans 12:2

I really love that verse -- "renewing of your mind." God wants us to learn and grow and discern the truth correctly so that we can "prove His good, acceptable and perfect will."

Proof requires evidence. And evidence either supports the truth or denies it.

[Mad Dawg]

So what’s the big deal if kosta50 and I have a vision of being a jasper or clear diamond to His Light – in this world and the next?

How many egos can contend on the head of a pin?

Can we stash the ruby laser in the "well of water springing up to eternal life" basket? In any event, it's a great analogy.

It seems to me that allowing some to be perpetually immolated in His praise, like a bush that burns but is not consumed, would certainly by among the ways God will glorify His redeemed. What a beacon they would be!

[kosta50]

Actually, to me, [the idea that our personalities are from this world] approaches BLASPHEMY

1. MY HEAVENLY DADDY DESIGNED MY PERSONALITY

Our personalities are sinful. Are you saying God made you that way?

AND STOP THIS DRAMA OF DRAWING ATTENTION TO YOURSELF WITH COLORS AND CAPITALS! IT'S ANNOYING! Stop it or else stop posting to me!

[kosta50]

I guess I need a positive articulation of the thesis of why all differences among humans must be a result of sin

It's the result of being focused on us, self-love, arrogance and pride. Otherwise we woulod consider everyone else as we would ocnsider ourselves; empathy and love for them. As it is we are incapable of loving each other as we love ourselves. And for the same reas we cannot love God with all ourheart and mind and soul.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Pastor Carrino is not alone. (And if I was reading this corectly, your FRiend Mad Dawg agrees with Quix here.) pinging you, MD, only because I mentioned you by name

Dr. Robert Letham, senior minister of Emmanuel Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Wilmington, Delaware, while he sees certain things to commend in the Eastern Orthodox tradition, also has this to say about the Eastern Church in his recent book on The Holy Trinity in Scripure, History, Theology and Worship:

"...(EO) doctrine of salvation, centered on incarnation, resurrection, and deification, leaves little room for the Atonement and justification." -- "THE HOLY TRINITY IN SCRIPTURE, HISTORY, THEOLOGY AND WORSHIP" (P & R Publishing, 2004), p. 354.

[kawaii]

it seems to me protestants for the most part look at religion as a means to glorify them rather than Christianity being the result of God creating man who is intended to glorify God not himself...

[Quix]

Welll, Dear Heart, it pains me to disagree with any of my loved ones and especially the closer ones and more especially about anything spiritual. Alas, such is life and our being DIFFERENT! lol.

Thank you oh so very much, Mad Dawg, for your wonderful sense of humor! It is much needed here and always, everywhere on the Religion Forum.

INDEED.

Quix, I am absolutely astonished that after all of our discussion of the different gemstones, the differences among the apostles, and on other threads – the differences among the churches – that you would demand that God must deal with each and every one of us exactly the same.

GOODNESS, I DON'T! I must have grossly miscommunicated. If anything, I'm strongly convined God will deal with all of us individually according to His plans for us and according to His uniquely designed personalities of each of us and our unique roles in His creation. I don't know what led to that misunderstanding, but I'm very sorry.

The ruby laser metaphor that hosepipe mentioned on another thread is such a wonderful example. The Light wavelength which is flashed into the ruby rod causes the electrons to build up energy (outer orbits) until it peaks – and then the return of those electrons to their inner orbits causes an offsetting emission of intense wavelength, the laser ray. The overload of Light to the ruby causes the laser!

I cannot think of a better metaphor for a Christian like Billy Graham. Can you?

No problem with those metaphors at all. Still much agree with them. Agree about Billy Graham.

But are all of us rubies? No way.

STRONGLY AGREE.

So what’s the big deal if kosta50 and I have a vision of being a jasper or clear diamond to His Light – in this world and the next?

Probably in most respects, perhaps all, no big deal. Heaven will sort it out for us when we get there regardless and however God sorts it out is obviously or not so obvioiusly FINE WITH ME.

And truly we do not have the same visions of heaven when God blesses us with them! hosepipe has experienced them, so has betty boop and so have I. Roland Buck testifies to them as does the Apostle John, Paul and Enoch. But only Jesus Christ speaks with authority.

Certainly.

I call them “night travels” by the way. And every time I’ve entered one it was while in deep worship laying aside every concern in this life.

Agreed.

There were never any words spoken in mine, though I got the distinct impression I could ask questions – I had none. But there was always melody, beautiful and impossible to describe with words.

IIRC, I think I've experienced both ways.

Several times I saw my sister and she joined me in traveling around God’s magnificient creation. I knew it was her, but her form was more like an etching in crystal. Space, time, distance had no meaning. At once we’d be holding Saturn in our arms and at once we’d be in the middle of an iris looking out.

SOUNDS WONDERFUL.

And there were calls to worship – not in language or sound, but we knew it was “time” to gather and we did. And there was Light, beautiful pure amazing living.

A common report, PTL.

That vision is why I can say that I would be content to be a pillar there, in His Light - rather than flitting about His Creation, taking it all in - or working puzzles or playing games with my beloved sister.

I choose to be content and expect to be beyond content in whatever role, state, form, etc. Father has designed for me and places me in. I do happen to believe that personality is part of all that regardless of the rest of all that. It is merely my conviction. I don't presume to force it on anyone else.

I do/have felt, for some reason, that there's something important to FATHER about the personality issue. Otherwise, I'd not have made such an . . . intense articulation of such convictions. Nevertheless, I merely see them as my convictions and my stewardship over the press I feel within about them. I merely offer my pontifications for prayerful consideration. Certainly I try to do so forcefully and faithfully as I experience them, feel them before my Father, by His Spirit.

So are my “night travels” false? Or is God comforting me with what I need to see to correspond with the worship? I think it is the latter.

I have not the slightest need or inclination or belief that they are false. I have great joy in rejoicing with you about them. Praise God. The most I might feel of less than saintly would be jealous over them.

And frankly, what I take away from Roland Buck’s vision is the blood of Christ, how precious it is and the meaning of the feasts. That he spoke with angels is the least important part, but the one which gets so much attention.

I have no big problem with that. Quite reasonable. I wholesale agree, actually.

Quix, I’m very sure you’ll retain your personality in heaven. And I’m very sure that kosta50 will not.

I don't think so. But However He does it, is fine, with me. I do think there is something critical, priceless about this personality issue that I don't quite grasp. But it's not central to The Gospel or to our Salvation or to any other core issue of the faith. I don't think it is, anyway.

No doubt that Paul’s personality is there in heaven, no doubt that John’s is not, he surrendered it while still in the flesh.

That's not my understanding. I've read an account or 2 of folks running into John there. And he was there in all his personality. Actually, I don't think even the martyrs standing eternally before the throne will be lacking one subatomic particle's worth of their personalities either. But that's my conviction. I don't see it as any sort of canon law any mortal can remotely insist on others swallowing. But if I have strong convictions that I feel are important, I'm not likely to state them in a wimpy fasion. That is virtually a . . . mortal sin, to me. For some reason.

The angels are not alike. Jeepers, some of them were so willful they were rebellious. Others, like Michael (Jude) show restraint, "The Lord rebuke thee." And we will be like the angels in heaven.

Reasonable analogy, I think.

And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God?
For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.

And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I [am] the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?

He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err. - Mark 12:24-27

I see it as some similarities in that no marriage nor given in marriage. Yet, there are clearly ways that we are not like the angels but eternally and pricelessly above them. Whatever that means.

Some, like the four living creatures and twenty four elders surrounding the the Throne in Revelation 4 are stationary, single minded, having no will but to glorify the Father and the Son.

INDEED.

The bottom line is
that God does not make
His creatures
with a cookie cutter.

INDEED! INDEED! INDEED! That's a key part of the main points I was trying to make.

The only times God speaks to equity in Scripture is when He explains that He did not make us to be equal. That is His will for us.

INDEED! WHOLESALE AGREE. MOST EMPHATICALLY.

So please stop insisting that I be like you, dear beloved brother in Christ. I am what God wants me to be.

Wouldn't dream of it. Thought that was clear. Am wounded that you were bothered by any thought in that direction at all. I thought I took great pains in noting that God had disciplined me most sternly and fiercely over any such attitude on my part. I don't know how that didn't transmit accurately. Sorry.

Again, it pains me to disagree with any loved one over a spiritual matter--and super much someone I care for and respect as much as you.

Much appreciate your kind reply.

[Alamo-Girl]

Truly, the Great Commandment is to love God absolutely - the distant second is to love our neighbors unconditionally. (paraphrased from Matt 22.)

However, it is possible to chew gum and walk at the same time.

The Son surely loves the Father absolutely - even while He was making everything, even while being born, speaking the Sermon on the Mount, while struggling in the Garden of Gethsemane, and while giving up the Spirit on the Cross.

It is His state of being - as it is to be ours whether in this world or the one to come.

[kosta50]

PARTICULARLY when redeemed, washed in CHRIST'S BLOOD

You are following the 11th century Anslem's doctrine of satisfaction redemption that is alien to me. It was unknown to the Church for 1,000 years.

[wmfights]

I find this claim of stability re-assuring, if not realistic, after all, if there really aren't any hard and fast doctrines, then what's the point of having all the denominations?

FWIW, ask how those doctrines and dogmas were arrived at and what was the environment. Then measure those doctrines and dogma against the only true solid source we have, Scripture. If these doctrines and dogmas stand then you are probably where you were meant to be. If you have doubts, pray and study Scripture for the answers.

[Quix]

So, in your view, the things we would be focuing on in the presence of God are people? How sad. Yet we could spend eternity discoverieng eternal and endless God's beauty instead.

NOT AT ALL!

Methinks I've left out an understanding that is only now resurfacing . . .

Even in this mortal flawed state, many folks can multi-task amazingly well--lots of mothers, for example.

I heard some preachers assert that in eternity we will SHARE THE MIND OF CHRIST. And that thereby and therefore, we will be able to focus on myriads of things at the same time, as Christ obviously does.

Divided vs Undivided attention? IF the divided attention is functionally identical to the undivided attention in that exalted state--what's the difference?

Again . . . Heaven is not a place where all the saints sit around on the floor in the lotus position in identical robes chanting identically the same note OOOOMMMMMMM eternally. No way. Not the place.

[Quix]

AMEN!

I just posted something on having THE MIND OF CHRIST

and multi-taskng.

AGreed.

[BelegStrongbow]

"This sacrament of initiation [baptism] is open to children as well as to adults."

I call your attention to the word 'initiation'. As I understand the word, it means that the person has been brought into a state where further development is now possible (or permissible in mundane matters). In the present case that is not the same as being sufficiently prepared for salvation. The person has been initiated in the faith, which must then be nurtured and spiritually fed.

Thus the sacrament is not a final provision as your listing implied and you have drawn an inference not borne out, even by the citation.

I would think that Anglican insistence on Apostolic Succession would be a far greater impediment to Protestant unification than the impediment you suggest (especially as it does not in fact hold).

I would also like to call the community's attention to a passage from that same page which you apparently have not taken in consideration in your allegation:

"The two sacraments ordained by Christ himself - Baptism and the Supper of the Lord - are administered with unfailing use of Christ's words of institution, and the elements are ordained by him."

I suggest this wording puts both sacraments on a level for Anglican Christians and that neither the one nor the other may be dispensed with in the pilgrimage to salvation.

Do you not agree?

[kosta50]

While there are many geographical autocephalous Orthodox Churches, I don't think they vary in praxis as widely as the Catholic Churches, as the sequel might show

Not only do they vary from one Church to another, they vary from one curch to another. I have yet to enter one Greek or OCA or Serbian or any other Orthodox Church and see the same arrangement, location of the choir, recognize the same typicon, or hear the exact same antiphons.

In some, the Lord's Prayer and the Creed are sung, in others they are recited. In some everyone stands in others (particularly American-based churches) there are pews. In some (Russian, Serbian) women stand on the left, men on the right, in Greek monasteries the same is observed, but in Greek American churches everyone is scattered, and so on.

Among Slavonic churches, some of the liturgy is in Church Slavonic, some in native Slavic vernacular; the choir, however, sings in Church Slavonic; in some churches the choir uses electric organs as "keys" (i.e. Greek churches), in others only males are in the choir. There is not a single Orthodox church, regardless of the Patriarchate, which is the same in Orthopraxis.

[kawaii]

the environment was hundreds of bishops, and thousands of priests and laity coming together in the presence of the Holy Spirit. (as opposed to dozens of angry west europeons)

[Quix]

I don't receive that allegation or assessment, judgment at all.

Thanks just the same.