Posted on 03/07/2007 9:10:18 AM PST by Salvation
|
||
Other Articles by Mary Harwell Sayler Printer Friendly Version |
||
Catholic and Protestant Bibles: What is the Difference? |
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.
i do beleive they're worse. i do believe that protestantism took the RC's worst traits and ran with them, yes. and frankly i think secularism was powered by misguided protestants throwing God out of the public space and inviting anything else into it (and we KNOW what would be chomping at the bit to to do so.)
I don't think you can find one group of Christians that were always called Baptists. What you can find is various Christian groups that had a core set of beliefs that were consistent with Baptist beliefs. You will find through out history Christian groups that believed in "permanent indwelling Holy Spirit in believers", "believer's baptism", "equality of believer's in the church", "separation of church and state", and "Scripture is the sole authority in the church".
Also, the naming of these Christian groups was perpetuated by those that sought to destroy them. As a result they were often known by different names in different geographic areas, or at different times in history. One of the popular myths is that there was a united Christianity in the west until the Reformation and that has never been the case.
If you trace what we know of these Christian groups you will find differences, but you will also find a lot of similarities; Montanists, Novatians, Donatists, Paulicians, Albigeneses, Paterines, Petrobrussians and Henricians, Arnoldists, Waldenses and Anabaptists.
I UNDERSTAND that you're convinced that no RC nor Orthodox mother ever dressed her children funny either?
i doubt you understand much at all, but note that whatever youre saying now is completely unrelated to either 2 prior posts.
Right. I assumed that or understood that from my own reading.
Thx..
What do you mean by that? Sorry if I have Misunderstood, but my Textus Receptus is All in One Piece.
I think you will find Pentecostal groups in that list I made in an earlier post. I agree there has always been a diversity of Christian groups and how they've organized themselves and worshiped. I think we are in good company as long as anything we do is being governed by Scripture. IOW, we don't elevate authority structures, or personalities above Scripture.
The Blessings of our Lord Jesus Christ be upon your Spirit.(Philemon1:25)
That is a terrific link to a thread posted five years ago by George W. Bush, a man who knows his Bible.
I've bookmarked it.
As though the RC's and Orthy's were
1,000% void ANY imperfections, heresies, evil etc.
LOL
GTTM
SMHSHMEACAB
That old article isn't perfect. But it has some info that is worth researching further. Certainly, many people don't know some of the info about ancient Bible-believing churches.
Thank you; likewise. May we all err on the side of rigtheousness.
Not too soon though, right?
You don't have to agree with me, but you made that point already. Perhaps you should concern yourself with your own growth.
Your memory is failing, although I have agreed with that other 'character' who brought it up because it is IN THE BIBLE. Get it?
Marcion.
The hevanely Father knows, or maybe you forgot? Is denying Paul's commandment about women being covered in church any less of an offense?
Textus Receptus? You must be joking. Do you know anything about the origins of TR?
Much thanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.