Article: Calvinism and Catholicism on the Bible
By Inge
June 18, 2009, at 3:39 pm
Ideas on Theology
The main differences between Protestantism (Calvinism) and Catholicism concerning the Bible
When comparing the Bible in Protestant and Catholic churches, one notices that the number of books in both versions differs. Why is that? Why do Protestants have fewer books? In this article I will give a more in-depth explanation than the one given in “A Journey into the Land of the Spirit” episode 1. There I explained that the origins of the differences lie in Church history.
Protestants try to be ‘as original as possible’ by using books translated from Hebrew, originating in Palestine, (the so-called Masoretic texts) whereas Catholics follow the Tradition, i.e., they use the books that were used by the Christians in the Roman Empire, based on the Greek Septuagint. First I will give a brief overview of Church history starting from the early beginnings until about 500 A.D., followed by a brief explanation of the Reformation (1521 and later). I will try to uncover the discussion points and influences that led to the re-investigation of Christianity’s origins and the decisions being made as a result of that investigation. After doing so I will summarise both the Roman Catholic rationale for these choices as well as the Reformed rationale. I will conclude with my own point of view.
History of the Early Church
Most people are familiar with the Bible like it is known now, but the Bible was different in the very beginning. The first Christians had books they regarded to as Scripture, but these books were only what we think now of the Old Testament. The newer books, beginning with the Gospels, were added centuries later. The reason for doing so lies in the Tradition and the need to defend the true teachings against heresies. The first church fathers studied the Scriptures (Old Testament), and used a lot of the Apostles’ quotations to clarify it’s meaning.
In this the beginnings of the tradition can be seen. To the Apostolic Fathers, Tradition wasn’t the opposite of Scripture, but rather acted as a guideline about how to read the Scriptures. Clement, Justin, and Polycarp show in their writings how Christ taught the Scriptures to his Apostles; the Apostles in turn taught them their knowledge they got from Christ. The Tradition according to Polycarp was ‘The word transmitted from the beginning’. He didn’t use the word ‘Tradition,’ but you can feel he’s referring to the thing we call Tradition now in his writings. In other words: Tradition isn’t an ‘invention’ of the Church; the notion existed from the very beginning.
Later, Tertullian and Irenaeus talked about a ‘living tradition of teachings within the Church’. Irenaeus especially wrote a lot about this tradition to counter the notion of an ‘esoteric’ and ’secret’ knowledge that these Gnostics alone would have had access to. According to the Gnostics, Jesus and the Apostles knew about secrets and only a small number of people had access to these secrets. Irenaeus showed that indeed Jesus taught everything to the Apostles, but the Apostles in their turn taught everything to their disciples. There was a ‘living tradition’ within the Church already and that tradition didn’t mention their ’secret knowledge’. Therefore their Gnosis never has been part of the Church’s teachings and they would have no proof that their teachings existed before. Irenaeus, on the other hand, did have that proof in the writings and teachings of the older Church Fathers. These kinds of disputes led to the birth of the Canon as we know it. Athanasius mentioned all books in a letter written in 367; Tertullian used the term ‘Apostolica traditio’ for the first time in this respect.
When reading Tertullian’s writings, one can see that he equates Tradition to ‘regula fidei’ (Rule of Faith). The same can be found in Irenaeus’ writings; he mentions the ‘Canon of Truth’. Both Church Fathers mean the same thing: You should read Scripture as a unit. When you end up with a ‘new doctrine’, chances are big you are ignoring the ‘regula fidei’. This was exactly what the heretics (Gnostics) were doing. Their threat faded away between the third and fourth century A.D. In the same time period the Church was able to organise itself better and become the leading religion in the Roman Empire. This was possible because of the persecutions stopping. As a result from challenges from outside the Church, Tradition became more important, because without it, it’s possible to make the Bible ’say’ virtually anything you would like. For Athanasius, Clemens, and their disciples, Tradition was deeply anchored in Scripture.
In the first paragraph I explained that Calvinists want to be original; to be authentic as possible. And here is where the difference relates to. A Catholic Bible has more books then a Protestant Bible. When both are compared, you can notice that the New Testament in both versions is exactly the same, but the Old Testament differs. What the Protestants did was taking the Masoretic text of the Tanakh and make that their Old Testament. They claim this is the original Jewish text that Jesus was referring to. Also, they point at the Council of Jamnia where the Canon of the Tanakh was set to only the books we now find in the Tanakh.
To summarise it, the whole reasoning of Protestants relates back to authenticity. The reason the deuterocanonicals (the Protestants call them apocrypha) weren’t included is, according to modern Calvinists, that these books aren’t Judaistic sources, but a product of Hellenistic Judaism. The books were included in the Greek translation of the Tanakh for Jews living in Alexandra (Egypt), who lost their ability to read the original Hebrew text.
Exegesis
According to Irenaeus, the Bible is able to explain itself when read as a unity. In Adversus Haereses (Against Heresies) he explains that one should compare Scripture with Scripture. The Scripture’s message is twofold: In the Old Testament prophets announce Christ’s coming and the New Testament contains the writings of the Apostles, people who lived and worked together with Christ. They were taught by Christ and passed Christ’s teachings to their own students (Polycarp, Phil 6,3).
Therefore, the Old Testament is, when interpreted the right way, a Christian book. The way it is being interpreted isn’t new; the Old Church Fathers used the same methods Judaism had been using centuries before. In Chapter 7 of his Second Letter (2 Clement), Clement of Rome stresses how important obedience is to the elders in a congregation. Their task is to preserve the faith and keep it pure. They pass it on exactly like they have been taught it. They should also be obedient to the Church in general and the bishops in particular. As the Church matured, several ways of exegesis were distinguished, and next week’s podcast will cover that topic.
Calvinist Protestants also point to the importance of the principle of ‘comparing scripture with scripture’. In fact, it’s the foundation of all Calvinist exegesis. The way it is implement differs a bit. What they mean is that one piece of Scripture can never contradict another piece of Scripture. If you have a theory, all pieces of Scripture have to support it, if they don’t your theory is faulty. If you think you know what one piece of Scripture means, there cannot be another piece of Scripture with an opposite meaning. Therefore, Bible study needs to be thorough and all theories need to be checked with the Bible using this method.
Conclusion
When reading early Church history and comparing the actual writings of the Apostolic Fathers in their historic context with the different streams in current Christianity, it struck me how much the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church have stayed the same. In their Catechism they summarise the way of teaching the Bible in very much the same way as I did in this article. Everything is really straightforward. The next thing is always a logical consequence of a previous step. I didn’t expect that.
In the Reformed Church where I have been baptised you can find a similar approach; however the Tradition isn’t explicitly present in the foreground. It’s not coincidental that a lot of Reformed people are unaware of its existence. You really have to ask ministers and read theologians like John Calvin to find out about it. And here is also where some cracks in my foundation start to appear. While preparing for this podcast I read through both rationales to check if I would phrase everything correctly. I had no special stance on this matter because I never really thought about it. And now there’s something nagging me. We have left out pieces of Scripture that should have stayed in, the reasons of removing them are faulty. There’s no other way to phrase this.
The problem is this: we want to be authentic, be sure to use the same texts the first Christians used. The first Christians didn’t have a New Testament, so we look at the Old Testament they were using. And it isn’t the Old Testament we are using right now. When looking at the activities of the Council of Jamnia mentioned above, there’s no way it would have had any authority to the first Christians. First, it was a JEWISH council, not a Christian. They did close the Canon of the Old Testament, but they did say something else on that Council. I quote Wikipedia on this:
The inclusion of a curse on the “Minim”. (..) According to the Jewish Encyclopedia article on Min: “In passages referring to the Christian period, “minim” usually indicates the Judæo-Christians, the Gnostics, and the Nazarenes, who often conversed with the Rabbis on the unity of God, creation, resurrection, and similar subjects. In some passages, indeed, it is used even for “Christian”; but it is possible that in such cases it is a substitution for the word “Nozeri,” which was the usual term for ‘Christian’… On the invitation of Gamaliel II., Samuel ha-Ḳaṭan composed a prayer against the minim which was inserted in the “Eighteen Benedictions”; it is called “Birkat ha-Minim” and forms the twelfth benediction; but instead of the original “Nozerim” … the present text has “wela-malshinim” (=”and to the informers”). The cause of this change in the text was probably, the accusation brought by the Church Fathers against the Jews of cursing all the Christians under the name of the Nazarenes.”
I simply cannot imagine that a the earliest Christians, who were persecuted by the Jews and the Roman Empire, would have listened to this Council that cursed them. This doesn’t make sense at all. I therefore cannot believe that’s the reason why the earliest Christians would be against Hellenism, since most of them were Greeks themselves, Gentiles. As church history shows, they indeed weren’t using the Masoretic Texts but the Septuagint (the Greek text). I asked my minister and his response was that the Hellenistic Greeks had no other translation but would have used the Masoretic texts if they could.
But this is an odd answer too. We’re talking about the Word of God, the Holy Scripture, if authenticity would have been an issue back then, they would have made sure they got a good translation. And even the Apostles used the Septuagint, at least they quote from it, so apparently they didn’t bother as much about it as the Reformators did. It’s just not right, it’s not straightforward, it does not make sense, so therefore we are probably wrong on this and should admit that. It’s not about getting our way, it’s about the Truth. Who cares if the Catholics got this right if it’s the Truth?
Current developments in the Reformed Church (at least here in the Netherlands) show why it is important to stress the Tradition more and more. A lot of people are ignorant and fall easily for deviant teachings of sects and other religious groups, who superficially seem to be strictly Biblical. On closer inspection you discover lots of their doctrines are refurbished old heresies like Montanism and Donatism. To me it’s like history repeating itself. One of the reasons these developments aren’t affecting the Roman Catholic Church so much is the protective shield of the Tradition. Protestants can actually learn from this and get their defences into place before it’s too late.
I also know that most Protestants see a formal way of incorporating Tradition as something Papist and object to it because of that. It hurts me to see my own church crumbling like it does now, but on the other hand it also shows me something is wrong at the basis of that church, because God promised to preserve His Church. Could this and all the schisms happening currently (the last one was in 2004) mean that I am in fact not inside His church but outside?
References
Tagged: 
Recent Comments