Why is the Catholic Bible different?

Answer 1

It contains theApocrypha ( a set of extra-biblical writings, not inspired of God but some are useful for historical purposes like Maccabees's the first 1611 kjv edition contained this as well, but was quickly pulled from all editions following the first edition. It is also translated from the Vulgate, originally translated from a different variant set of Greek manuscripts. The KJV is translated from the Western Syrian texts, where it also translates from the Latin, it is the Latin that preceded the Vulgate line of Latin manuscripts.

Roman Catholic AnswerIt was Protestantism that removed these "deuterocanonical" books from the Bible, many centuries later. And contrary to the myth, the early Church did indeed accept these books as Scripture.

The seven disputed books are: Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus (or Sirach), and Baruch. Catholic Bibles also include an additional six chapters (107 verses) in Esther and three chapters (174 verses) in Daniel.

According to major Protestant scholars and historians, in the first four centuries Church leaders (e.g. St. Justin Martyr, Tertullian, St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, St. Cyprian, St. Irenaeus) generally recognized these seven books as canonical and scriptural, following the Septuagint Greek translation of the Old Testament, following the Council of Rome (382), and general consensus, finalized the New Testament canon while also including the deutercanon, in lists that were identical to that of the Council of Trent (1545-1563).

There's a scholarly consensus that this canon was pretty much accepted from the fourth century to the sixteenth, and indeed, the earliest Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament: the Codes Sinaiticus (fourth century) and Codex Alexandrinus (c. 450) include the (unseparated) deuterocanonical books. The Dead Sea Scrolls found at Qumran did not contain Esther, but did contain Tobit.

According to Douglas and Geisler, Jamnia (first century Jewish council) was not an authoritative council, but simply a gathering of scholars, and similar events occurred afterward. In fact, at Jamnia the canonicity of books such as Ester, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon was also disputed. Since both Protestants and Catholics accept these books today, this shows that Jamnia did not "settle" anything. The Jews were still arguing about the canonicity of the books mentioned earlier and also Proverbs into the early second century.

And St. Jerome's sometimes critical views on these books are not a clear-cut as Protestants often make them out to be. In his Apology Against Rufinus (402) for example, he wrote:

When I repeat what the Jews say against the story of Susanna and the the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which are not contained in the Hebrew Bible, the man who makes this a charge against me proves himself to be a fool and a slanderer; for I explained not what I thought but what they commonly say against us (Apology Against Rufinus, book II, 33)

Significantly, St. Jerome included the deuterocanonical books in the Vulgate, his Latin translation of the Bible, (And he defended the inspiration of Judith in a preface to it.) All in all, there is no clear evidence that St. Jerome rejected these seven books, and much to suggest that he accepted them as inspired Scripture, as the Catholic Church does today. But St. Jerome (like any Church father) does not have the final authority in the Church. He's not infallible. The historical evidence, all things considered, strongly supports the Catholic belief that these books are inspired and thus indeed part of Holy Scripture

from The One-Minute Apologist by Dave Armstrong; Manchester, NH: Sophia Institute Press, 2007

Answer 2

The Catholic Bible has more books in the Old Testament that the Protestant bible.

.

Catholic AnswerThe Catholic Bible is a translation, in the Old Testament, of the Septuagint, which is The Bible that was used by Our Blessed Lord, Himself, and the New Testament which was written by the first generation of Catholics, and assembled in the fifth century, as we have it today. The "Bible" used by protestants is based on the Masoretic text which was made up by those Jews who refused to recognize Our Blessed Lord as their promised Messiah, and thus they removed seven books, and parts of others from their Bible as they supported Christian beliefs.

The Protestant Bible does not have these books: Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, 1 and 2 Machabees, verse 4 of Chapter 10 to the end of Esther, and Daniel, verse 24 of Chapter 3 to verse 3 of Cgapter 4 and Chapters 13 and 14.

.

You can tell that it is a Bible approved by the Catholic Church if it has an Imprimatur and a Nihil Obstat either across from the Title page or on the back of the Title page. These are declarations by a Bishop and a censor that the Bible has been examined and is free from error. A protestant Bible would be lacking the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, and would also contain five less books including Tobit, Sirach, Wisdom, and 1 and 2 Maccabees and be missing parts of three others because Martin Luther did not agree with the doctrines that were contained therein and threw them out in the sixteenth century. They are called the Deuterocanonical books. He also tried to remove several books from the New Testament but meant with more resistance to modifying it. Protestants often refer to the Deuterocanon as the Apocyphra, this is an error, the Apocyrpha was never considered part of the Canon, while the Deuterocanonical Books most definitely are, and they accept the Deuterocanonicals of the New Testament.

Answer 3

The Catholic Bible is not different, it is the same Bible that Christians have always used. The Old Testament is based on the Septuagint, which is the Bible that was used by most of the Jews for 500 years, and was used by Our Blessed Lord, Jesus Christ. Most of the references in the New Testament are from the Septuagint. The different Bible is the protestant Bible as it is based on Martin Luther's opinion that threw out seven books from the Old Testament as supporting Christian beliefs that Martin Luther didn't like. But no one had ever seen that Bible until the sixteenth century A.D.