Catholic vs Protestant Bible

[rmpaul]

I’m not sure how to pose this question. I guess I need to start by understanding how and why the difference in Bibles came about. Protestants say we “added” the extra books; Catholics say the Protestants removed them. I notice that the books in questions are relatively new compared to the balance of Old Testament. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe Ecclesiastes is the only other OT book that is fairly “new” (300 BC) besides the 7 (?) other books that are considered “Catholic”. Several of these were written around first century BC. If they are so new, who, when, why were they added? How did this come about? Can anyone point me in the right direction? Thanks.

 

[Fidelis]

These books were not added by Catholics, they were removed by Protestants. If you ask Protestants at what point Catholics addd these books, they can’t point to a date, because the Church has always treated these books as inspired, even though the first formal lists weren’t drawn up until about the 4th century.

For more information, see the Envoy article “Seven Myths About Seven Books” (envoymagazine.com/backissues/1.2/marapril_story2.html) and “The Old Testament Canon” from Catholic Answers, found at catholic.com/library/Old_Testament_Canon.asp.

I’d also recommend “Where We Got The Bible” also available from Catholic Answers at shop.catholic.com/cgi-local/SoftCart.exe/online-store/scstore/p-CB027.html?E+scstore

 

[Andyman1517]

This is not true Fidelis. The Protestant Bible contains the same books that most Jews hold as cannonical. The deuterocannonicals were mostly written in either Greek or Aramaic and much later than other OT material. Contrary to the beliefs of many people on this board, the deuterocannonicals were added only during the Council of Trent. Even Jerome was reluctant to include them in the Vulgate (which originally did not contain all of them). It’s not that Protestants don’t read and respect these books, it’s just that they’re too suspect to include in the Bible.

And, yes, Martin Luther did translate some of the deuterocannonicals.

 

[Fidelis]

Andyman1517:

This is not true Fidelis. The Protestant Bible contains the same books that most Jews hold as cannonical. The deuterocannonicals were mostly written in either Greek or Aramaic and much later than other OT material. Contrary to the beliefs of many people on this board, the deuterocanonicals were added only during the Council of Trent. Even Jerome was reluctant to include them in the Vulgate (which originally did not contain all of them). It’s not that Protestants don’t read and respect these books, it’s just that they’re too suspect to include in the Bible.

And, yes, Martin Luther did translate some of the deuterocannonicals.

I’m sorry Andyman, but you are mistaken. The Council of Trent, held after the Reformation, merely affirmed the canon that the Church had always held. This was AFTER Martin Luther had removed these books from his version of the Bible. How could Martin Luther remove them if they supposedly were added in a council that was held AFTER he removed them???

Jews only arrived at their present canon in the second century at the Council of Jamnia. At this council, they rejected the deuterocanonicals because the new Christian church was using them to teach distinctive Christian (i.e. Catholic beliefs). At this same council they rejected many of the books of what is now the New Testament. The decisions of a Jewish council called primarily to repudiate Christian writings is not exactly the best criteria to determine the Christian canon.

When and in what language the deuterocanonicals were written has no bearing on their inspiration or canonicity.

As to St. Jerome, while he may not have been of the opinion that the deuterocanonicals were not canonical, he accepted them because he had the humility to know that this is not for individuals to decide, but the Church.

Again, I recommend you read the resources I gave in my previous post.

 

[copland]

One big difference is that most Protestant OT texts use the format of the Masoretic Text, which is a Pharisee revision by the Jews who changed many key messianic passages. While the Greek Septuagint is consulted along with the Dead Sea Scrolls for the OT format of Catholic Bibles of the modern day.

This is a key factor because if you look at the NT in your Protestant Bibles and then look at the OT passage it quoted, and then look at that passage in the Protestant OT translation you will often find different readings. That is because the NT authors quoted the Greek Septuagint when they quoted the OT. The Septuagint was quoted 93% of the time by the NT authors.

The Septuagint contained the extra books that are in the Catholic Bible. The Early church Fathers quoted those books.

 

[Pax]

Many of the deuterocanonical books were indeed written in Hebrew, but this was not known until the discovery and analysis of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The most widely used assemblage of scriptures during Jesus time was the Greek Septuagint. This collection was used and quoted by Jesus and the apostles. The Greek Septuagint contained the deuterocanonical books. The Greek Septuagint was a translation performed about 100 to 150 BC. The books themselves were written earlier than this.

Jesus and the apostles used them, the Church used them, and the Church continues to use them. The Church confirmed them at the Councils of Rome, Carthage, and Hippo in the 4th century, and then affirmed them again at the Council of Florence in 1442, and then once again at the Council of Trent. To suggest that the Catholic Church added these books is ludicrous.

If you want an example of a deuterocanonical reference in the NT go to the book of Hebrews and read Chapter 11 verse 35. This verse refers to events in the OT and includes the word “resurrection.” This is a direct and unmistakeable reference to a story in 2 Maccabees chapter 7 about a family that is martyred by an evil king. If you search the Protestant OT you cannot find the word “resurrection.” You will, however, find the word “resurrection” in 2 Maccabees and it is found in the exact story referenced in the Book of Hebrews. This is not the only NT reference to something in the deuterocanonical books. These books are the inspired word of God and have been with us since the time of Christ.

It is true that the deuterocanonicals were not recognized as inspired as early or with the same kind of unanimity as the other OT books, but neither were the Book of Revelation and other NT books that all Christians accept today.

 

[GaryZak]

I’ve read many times both copies of the NEW TESTAMENT, and I’ve have them all on Computer… The NIV, the NAB, and the KJV, and the NKJV, which is the same as the NIV… They are/R all the same, except if you like 16th Century English or not… Verbs and Nouns may be different, like EAGLE instead of VULTURE, but they are the VERY SAME AGREEMENT WITH GOD… 27 Chapters vs. 27 Chapters, I compare and contrast every day on the computer… The Jewish books of their Covenant are the Pentatuah, the first five books, the Torah. Everything else is/are simply messages from Prophets, History, Geneology, and Wisdom… The Catholic Bible has SEVEN MORE books of WISDOM, especially SIRACH, which imparts much WISDOM…

But BOTH IMPART their respective COVENANTS completely… This is weird conversation, one should ,“READ,” what one is talking about!

 

[rmpaul]

Thank you all for your (name removed by moderator)ut. Pax and Fidelis, I especially found your replies helpful and some of my questions were answered in one of the aritcle links given. GaryZak, I think you missed the intent of my original question. It’s not the meaning of the message I’m after…I use a number of different translations also. I often spread 2-3 different Bibles in front of me as I study. As I learn more about my Catholic heritage I have curiosity questions that I want answers to, that’s all; especially since my folks left the Church when I was very young and am learning so much now for the first time on my own. I simply want to learn the history of the Bible and what all the controversy has been about.