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

[Marysecretary]

Hey, wasn't John a baptist (smile)?

[Marysecretary]

When I asked Jesus to come into my life, he cleansed me from my sins and made me a new creation. Yes, I have to continually repent and confess my sins to Him, but I KNOW without a doubt that I am saved. I don't have to wait until I die to have my faults and good points weighed on some spiritual scale. I'm sorry for those who don't see that and may die without having Christ as Lord and Saviour, with the Holy Spirit indwelling him/her.

[betty boop]

But those idolizing such pontifications as truth or as THEIR BRILLIANCE will find the weight of them to be more than a millstone around their necks in a certain warm lake.

Quix, you speak the Truth of it.

Still, a caution: We ought never to derive pleasure or satisfaction from the sufferings of others, even if only in imagination, and even if "they deserved it." It just sets up such a bad precedent in the light of God's Word: "Judge not, lest ye shall also be judged."

By which I take God to mean: the way you deal with people subject in any way to your judgment, and the criteria by which you qualify valid, admissible evidence pertaining to their individual cases, altogether specify the same exact "system of justice" that you yourself will receive on Judgment Day. In effect, we humans "write the book" stipulating the equitable standards that inevitably will be applied to our own particular cases, in the fullness of Time....

And so it seems that human liberty itself is not without a "Limit".... Probably this can be ascribed to the fact that Man does not make himself; only God can create a man.

It's the source:image issue in play here, and the irreconcilable disparties that evidently exist between seemingly alike things, which eventually usually get sorted out and consigned to a set of "categorical," not ontological classification -- that is, they are not considered to be problems of Being. (Assuming there are still people around who study "Being" for is own sake....)

Only in God are we fully "justified." We humans can no more justify ourselves than to create ourselves.... Nor do we create or control our final destiny....

In short, I pray for the souls of sinners, who are my brothers and sisters in Christ....

And moreover I thank you, my dear brother in Christ, for sharing your thoughts in these matters this evening.

[Marysecretary]

There's no doubt that there are liberal protestant churches that have been taken over by secular folk, but you insult the many other churches that preach Christ crucified and coming again, those who take their vows seriously, pastors who preach the Word of God and live what they preach. Most worship songs are taken from scripture. Our worship music takes us into His presence often. It's beautiful. I'm sorry you haven't experienced that.

ALL churches fall short of the glory of God because we are full of humans who also fall short of His glory! I don't care if you're protestant, Catholic, Eastern or Russian orthodox, or what you are. YOU fall short!

[Marysecretary]

Yeah, it does, doesn't it? I'm looking forward to heaven but am in no BIG hurry to get there (smile).

[Marysecretary]

Thank you, dear friend.

[Quix]

i AGREE quite wholesale and entirely.

Thanks tons for your Spirit-led/born wisdom.

Bless you and yours this week, spring.

You a persistent blessing to me.

[Quix]

I wished, in that post to declare a caution, not a sentence . . . a caution we all do well to keep in mind.

[Quix]

Very well put.

Thx.

[wmfights]

Hey, wasn't John a baptist (smile)?

You bet! ;-0

[Cvengr]

"ALL churches fall short of the glory of God because we are full of humans who also fall short of His glory! I don't care if you're protestant, Catholic, Eastern or Russian orthodox, or what you are. YOU fall short!"

Parable of the mustard seed speaks to this a little bit. I've read one interpretation which notes that in His plan, the Church was not intended to have grown as large as it has, but that once it grew as a large bush, birds came into nest.

Instead of weeding out that which isn't good at present, the harvest will first gather all then burn out all that isn't good by divine metrics.

Insofar as any believer remains in fellowship with Him through faith in Christ, we bear good fruit.

Matt 13, 17

Mark 4

Luke 13, 17

[kosta50]

Thank you for your exhaustive post.

Paul was not taught the Gospel of Jesus Christ by flesh and blood, it was revealed to him.

Herein lies the first problem. The Hebrew God does not "download" the Gospel but teaches it by spoken word. As Jarsolav Pelikan says in his famous book Whose Bible Is It, the OT says that God spoke to Moses and gave him the Law, word by word [The Koran makes the same "authoritative" claim with Allah dictating to Mohammad].

Throughout the Old Testament, the Lord speaks to the Prophets, gradually revealing Himself. Christ patiently teaches His disciples, in spoken words, the Good News. It is only with Paul, that God reveals everything to him in an instant, using an uncharacteristic "shortcut."

What he is implying is an esoteric experience, the 'privilege' of the select few (in his case the only one), of direct participation with the divine, receiving 'privileged information' en toto — an undeniably Gnostic belief.

You then quote Paul's second undeniably Gnostic statement: "But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called [me] by his grace, To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen..."

The claim of the indwelling God in us, even before we believe (Paul is implying that Christ was in him, but was hidden), who is revealed to us by this mystical esoteric, yet certain knowledge (gnosis) is not only the basis of Gnosticism, but sufficient cause for salvation.

I think it is obvious that this is precisely what Paul taught: saved by faith (which comes from esoteric knowledge given to the (s)elect by God in an instant) alone.

So, when you say ", I doubt I will be able to convince you to the contrary, dear kosta50" I must concur, and ad emphatically "With the opinions you have expressed regarding Paul — likewise, dear Albion Girl," as I have not even began to scratch the surface of the reasons, nor would the bandwidth allow it. It's not personal, trust me.

One thing is clear: Paul is unlike any other Apostle, and his teaching is quite distinct from what is taught in the Gospels. There is also a possibility that he may have suffered from epilepsy (Gal 4:13-14]

"but you know that it was because of a bodily illness that I preached the gospel to you the first time; and that which was a trial to you in my bodily condition you did not despise or loathe, but you received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus Himself."

Perhaps you did not notice that in Acts 9:7 Paul's companion(s) heard a sound but saw no one; yet in Act 22:9 his companions saw the light but heard nothing.

In II Cor 12:24, Paul speaks of a man of faith in Christ who was taken to "the third heaven" and "heard things that cannot be told, which man may not utter." [BTW, Muhammad narrates a similar experience]

Interestingly he also tells us that Christ in flesh is not to be remembered:

If we did know Jesus according to the flesh, that is not how we know about him any longer. [II Corinthians 5:16]

What does that make of the Gospels?!

Appealing to the 'indwelling Spirit' or gnosis, or hidden knowledge, or faith, is a subjective statement which may seem "objective" to you, and you alone and as such cannot be used as a 'material' for rational argumnet.

So, when you tell me that "Justin Martyr testified to the astonishing difference between wisdom he gained by diligent learning v. revelations" there is nothing one can say to that because it is as if I say "I have a heartburn." You can either believe it or not. But it ends any discussion.

And so, when the argument is reduced to "And I too, having experienced nearly a half century of the indwelling Spirit – also testify to the piercing difference between understanding gained by revelation v reasoning v sensory perception, e.g. listening to the counsel of men" I can shrug my shoulders and say "Okay." I can't "see" if you have a toothache. Such experiences are not conducive to conversation, let alone serious discussion.

Then you continue "So on personal experience, I assure you that Paul is speaking of the mind of Christ as revealed by the indwelling Spirit in I Corinthians 2."

Okay. Thank you for sharing that.

Let me just say that the Jews and Muslims believe with equal fervor and find their "inner experience" just as convincing as you and all of us do. They will tell you that their knowledge is as certain as you claim yours.

The LDS fervently defend their Book of Mormon, absolutely convinced that we and the Jews and the Muslims are "sadly mistaken." They all 'know' this through esoteric inner 'knowledge' that cannot be uttered in words.

If I use the Quix trix, we all notice that the color changed from 'black' to 'red' but we have no way of knowing how you actually see/perceive/experience the color we all commonly call red compared to the rest of us, any more than we can 'read' what the other person is thinking in his or her head, or whether someone has a muscle ache.

My point is: discuss with facts! We can discuss using tangibles but not with esoteric experiences. Unless, of course, our purpose is not to have a discussion but a group hug, everyone patting each other on the back.

[kosta50]

Our behavior is a visible expression of our "personality" (which really isn't a singular term).

However, we all respond to noxious stimulation in a predictable, physiologically conceptualized ways, and in that sense we really do not have specific personalities when we are born. Babies cry when they are hungry; they all 'naturally' know how to find that nipple and drink!

So, if behavior is an expression of 'how we are' as humans, then we are pretty much born with very similar and predictable 'personalities.'

As we sin, our behavior changes and so does our personality to a point

But children do not sin until they are old enough to know right from wrong! Yet they exhibit distinct 'personalities.' I do agree that our personalities change — better, yet, evolve but I think it is not an established fact that some are born with 'criminal traits.'

In fact, just about everything we know is learned and not something we are born with.

I don't know if we'll have the same earthly personality but we'll certainly be recognizable by our friends and family who are there.

Do you have a biblical reference to that claim?

[kosta50]

We'll be praising God, we'll be doing His will.

Then our personalities won't matter, by definition.

[kosta50]

So, your "Bible" [in quotes since so much seems to be missing from it] is missing the verses about

Not applicable; we were talking about the world to come (heaven kingdom), not the earth, where God was revealing Himself to Adam, the Prophets, etc. gradually leading to Christ.

[kosta50]

I don't think God is insulted by anything I've said

if God could get insulted He would be subject to passions, as we are.

But the Lord specifically mentions that we must not use His name in vain and warns that blaspheming against the Holy Spirit is unforgivable. Unfortunately, using His name in whatever form to 'prove' our point (i.e. "God told me so," or "the indwelling Spirit says so," etc.) is walking on think ice, as far as I am concerned.

[kosta50]

I KNOW without a doubt that I am saved. I don't have to wait until I die to have my faults and good points weighed on some spiritual scale

The bible is clear that we will all be judged according to what we have done, that is — after we die, for "it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment." [Heb 9:27]

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you oh so very much for your encouragements!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for sharing the Operation Z Bible Study! It is quite an interesting approach to discussing the Greek terms concerning our "working out our own salvation."

[Alamo-Girl]

You know we(humans) "NEED" spiritual discernment.. for without it we operate in carnal delusion and maybe fleshly denial.. I say spiritual discernment because we can be prone to hear what we want to hear and see what we want to see.. and taste what we want to taste.. and feel what we want to feel.. And; many there be, that have developed the skills to provide those services to us..

Beautiful and wise post, dear brother in Christ! Thank you!