Alright, let’s talk about something that has stirred up debates for centuries: why Catholic and Protestant Bibles don’t match.
Ever noticed that Catholic Bibles have seven extra books in the Old Testament compared to Protestant ones?
If you’ve ever flipped through a Catholic Bible and thought, Wait, what’s Tobit doing here?, you’re not alone.
Those extra books—called the Deuterocanon—are at the heart of this conversation. But who added or removed what? Let’s dig into the backstory.
I never knew this until just a few years ago and returning to Christianity during a very trying period in my life.
Then the rabbit hole deepened as a friend talked about that we really need a return to Orthodoxy.
So which Bible is correct?
The Big Question: Did Catholics Add or Did Protestants Subtract?
Here’s the short version: Catholics include the Deuterocanonical books, and Protestants don’t.
Catholics say, “We’ve had these all along,” while Protestants are like, “Nah, we’re sticking with what the ancient Jews recognized.”
But—as with most historical debates—it’s not that simple.
The Protestant Reformation in the 16th century shook things up big time.
Martin Luther, the original rebel, decided to roll with the Hebrew Scriptures used by many Jewish communities, which didn’t include the Deuterocanon.
But the Catholic Church doubled down, saying, “Nope, these books are legit. They’ve always been a part of our tradition.”
So, did Catholics sneak in extra books, or did Protestants hit delete? To answer that, we need to go waaaay back to first-century Judaism—aka the religious Wild West.
First-Century Judaism: More Chaos Than You Think
If you’ve been picturing ancient Judaism as one big happy family with a perfectly curated Bible, I’ve got news for you: it wasn’t.
Judaism in the first century was all over the place.
There wasn’t a single, universally agreed-upon set of sacred texts.
Take the Sadducees, for example.
These folks were like, “If it’s not in the Torah (the first five books of Moses), we don’t care.” Meanwhile, the Pharisees (who were more mainstream) embraced a wider range of scriptures.
Then you had groups like the Essenes—basically the hermit hipsters of Judaism—who loved their extra books, like Enoch and Tobit.
Oh, and the Samaritans? They kept it old school, sticking strictly to the Torah and ignoring the rest.
So yeah, there wasn’t one "official" Jewish Bible back then. Instead, you had competing groups, each claiming their version of scripture was the real deal.
It’s messy, but it also makes the Protestant claim of “returning to the original Jewish canon” a little tricky—because which group’s canon are we talking about here?
What About Jesus and His Apostles?
For Christians, this whole debate boils down to one big question: What did Jesus and his crew think?
After all, if you believe Jesus is the Son of God, then his take on scripture is kind of the final word.
Here’s where things get interesting.
Some scholars argue that Jesus and his apostles quoted from the Septuagint (a Greek translation of Jewish scriptures), which included the Deuterocanon.
Others think the Deuterocanonical books were just considered good reading—not necessarily scripture.
The New Testament writers do reference ideas found in the Deuterocanon, but it’s not like they open their sermons with, “As it says in Tobit…”
So, while we don’t have a definitive answer, it’s fair to say the early Christians weren’t super uptight about having one, locked-down canon. Their focus was on Jesus, not book lists.
The Reformation Shake-Up
Fast forward to the 1500s. Martin Luther came along and questioned… well, almost everything.
When it came to the Bible, he argued that the Old Testament should only include books recognized by ancient Jewish authorities—aka, no Deuterocanon.
His reasoning? He wanted the Bible to align with what he saw as the original scriptures of the Jewish faith.
The Catholic Church, meanwhile, was like, “Hold up. These books have been part of our tradition for over a thousand years. Who are you to decide they don’t count?”
They made it official at the Council of Trent (1545–1563), reaffirming the Deuterocanonical books as part of scripture.
So, Protestants trimmed the Old Testament to match the Hebrew canon, and Catholics stuck with their broader collection.
And here we are today, with two versions of the Bible depending on your Christian flavor.
Why Does This Matter?
Okay, you might be thinking, Cool history lesson, but why should I care?
Well, understanding this stuff helps us see why the Bible isn’t just a book—it’s a library shaped by centuries of debate, tradition, and faith.
Whether you’re Catholic, Protestant, or just curious, this discussion reminds us that scripture is deeply intertwined with history and humanity.
Plus, it’s a great way to impress your friends at trivia night. (“Did you know the Deuterocanon includes Judith, which is basically an ancient action movie in book form?” You’re welcome.)
Final Thoughts (and a Sneak Peek)
So, here’s the gist: the Catholic and Protestant Old Testaments differ because of historical disagreements about which texts should be considered scripture.
The Catholic Church says the Deuterocanon was always part of the deal.
Protestants argue they’re sticking to a purer, original version.
Who’s right?
Well, that depends on your perspective—and maybe your denomination.
In the next post, we’ll dive deeper into the New Testament and look at whether it drops any hints about which Old Testament books the early Christians considered sacred.
Spoiler alert: the plot thickens.
For now, let’s just appreciate the fact that these debates—even the super nerdy ones—help us understand the Bible (and ourselves) a little better. Cheers to that! 🥂
Posted Using INLEO