DeoOmnisGloria.com

Why do protestants and Catholics have different Bibles?

Many protestants don’t realize that they have a different Bible than Catholics (many Catholics miss this as well). The protestant Bible only contains 39 Old Testament books, 7 less than the Catholic Bible and two other books are missing a few chapters or verses. Why is this?

Where we got the Bible
The story starts with the origins of Scripture. There were several Old Testament versions floating around at the Birth of Christianity. Some groups recognized only the first 5 books of the Bible, which are commonly called the Torah or Law. Another group recognized only the Torah and the Prophets. But the most common version of the Old Testament, which was accepted by virtually all of the Jewish people, is the Septuagint. The Septuagint includes the Torah, the prophets, and all of the other Old Testament books – including the seven only in the Catholic Bible. Those seven books include Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, and Baruch. These seven books were written a little later than the others (the Old Testament was compiled over many, many years) and became known as deutocanonical, which means ‘second canon.’

In 70 A.D. the plot thickened. The Romans invaded Jerusalem and destroyed the Jewish temple. Because of this, the Jewish authorities met in Javneh in 90 A.D. to re-establish the canon. They excluded the Gospels and threw out every Old Testament book that referred to the Romans as a friend of the Jews (this was the worst imaginable travesty to faithful Jews). But remember, by this time the Christians had become the true church of Christ, thus the Jews did not have the authority to change the books of Scripture. In addition, if we accept their decision at this council, how can we include the Gospels? These were also condemned. (Note also that some Jews still include the deuterocanonical books in their canon of Scripture.)

The New Testament began being written around 55 A.D. (Matthew was the first to start). But the last New Testament book completed wasn’t until after 100 A.D. (Revelations). Remember that Christ was crucified in 33 A.D. During this time, individual churches would have access to some Scriptural text, but probably not all. There was no consensus over which books were Scripture and which were not – several books were floating around that we do not consider Scripture today, such as the Gospel of Thomas, etc. Over the next few hundred years a general consensus was reached concerning which books were Scripture. But there were still discrepancies, for example some people did not acknowledge Revelation as Scripture.

So in 393 A.D., over 350 years after the Crucifixion, the pope called a council of all the Roman Catholic bishops. Together they determined the official canon of Scripture that we now call the Bible (which translates as “book”). This council, called the Council of Hippo offers us the first definition of the Bible and lists the exact books in the Catholic Bible as we know them. This was reaffirmed at the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D. and again at the Council of Trent in 1548 (this last was in response to the challenge by Martin Luther). From the definition in 393 A.D. until Luther entered the world stage, the Catholic Bible was the only Christian Bible.

Martin Luther’s Influence
Much like the Jesus Seminar, Martin Luther was very skeptical of some parts of Scripture. In particular, he didn’t like some books of the Old Testament that clearly contradicted his interpretation of Scripture. For example, Tobit and Maccabees teach that we should pray for the dead; 2 Maccabees 15:14 (which is alluded to in Revelation 6:9-10) teaches the intercession of the Saints; Tobit teaches the intercession of Angels. But Martin Luther had a convenient way out of this problem: the Jewish Scriptures (the Old Testament) of his day did not include the Apocryptha (this was a new term to denigrate the authority of these Scriptures). So Luther effectively changed the Bible – despite the fact that Scripture condemns those who do so.

So, in 1520 we have the first Bible printed that separates out the deuterocanonical books. Initially all protestant Bibles were still printed with these books included. In fact, in England a law was passed that threatened the death penalty for anyone printing a Bible without them – even the original King James version included the “Apocryptha.” But Luther, Calvin and others taught that these books were not equivalent to other Scriptures. It wasn’t until 1827 that the first Bible was printed without them. Luther also wanted to throw out several New Testament books, including Hebrews, James (which contradicts his thought), Jude, and Revelation. In fact, he moved these books to the back of the protestant Bible because of his dislike of them (they remain at the back of most protestant translations). He also wanted to remove the Old Testament books of Job and Jonah (he considered them “fables”).

Should we read the Apocrypha or Deuterocanonical books?
I think there is far more evidence supporting the validity of these books. Here’s a quick summary:

• Out of the 350 Old Testament citations in the New Testament, 300 come from the Septuagint, which included the deuterocanonical books.
  
• The earliest Greek copies of the Old Testament we have (circa 450 A.D.) include these books (there are two such Greek copies).
  
• The early Church Fathers (even from before the Council of Hippo) refer to these books as Scripture (they don’t suggest any difference between these books and the rest of the Old Testament). These men weren’t perfect and there are a few that did separate the deuterocanonical books out, but not many. Only St. Jerome suggested they might not be Scriptural (again, pre-Council of Hippo). Later in his life, St. Jerome defended the deuterocanonical books as Scripture.
  
• Jesus and His apostles never denounced the Septuagint or even suggested that it was erroneous. It was the predominant translation of His day, so if it included incorrect books you would expected Christ himself or one of the twelve to condemn it. But they choose not to and instead quoted from it.
  
• There are several New Testament verses which are considered paraphrases of deuterocanonical passages. For example, 1 Corinthians 15:29 references 2 Maccabees 12:44 (this is a particularly problematic passage for protestants); Hebrews 11:35 references 2 Maccabees 7 (the only place in the Old Testament where someone is tortured as described in Hebrews); and Revelation 8:3-4 references Tobit 12:15.
  
• Finally, if the books had not contradicted Luther’s new translation of Scripture, it is unlikely they would have been removed. They had to be removed in order for Luther’s new “church” to be even partially believable.
  

Conclusion
Clearly, the deuterocanonical books were accepted by Christ and His apostles in the Septuagint as they were by the earliest Christians. The primary definition of the Bible as we know it includes these books and for a millennia all Christians accepted it. Why should it change? Martin Luther had invented a new theology that was not consistent with Scripture as we know it, so he had to remove these books in order to make his theology palatable. Is that a good enough reason for you?

The facts stand far more in favor of these books than against them. For more reading, see:

• Understanding the Apocryphta
  
• Where we Got the Bible
  

God bless,
Jay