Different Bibles - Why?

Brothers and sisters in Christ....
    We often run up against an interesting question as Christians, today:

Why Do Protestant and Catholic Bibles Differ?

    And the answer is simpler than you might imagine:
    There are different Christian Bibles, Protestant and Catholic, because of Martin Luther. He made the changes himself that caused the split, by moving seven Old Testament books (Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, and 1 and 2 Maccabees) into a separate appendix called the Apocrypha.
    He did this on his own recognizance, standing on his personal opinion that they were not divinely inspired scripture equal to the Hebrew canon, though he considered them good and useful for reading.

Reasons for Luther's Decision

Hebrew Canon: Luther thought everyone should go by the ancient Jewish canon called the Masoretic text, which excluded these books because they were written in Greek rather than Hebrew. 
    In typical Luther duality, he seemed not to contest all the rest of the Bible that had been written in Greek.

Doctrinal Conflicts: Some contents in these books (such as prayers for the dead in 2 Maccabees) directly conflicted with his core teaching of sola fide (salvation by faith alone).
    Since they were upheld by Catholics, and were the basis for doctrine in The Church, he naturally opposed them.

Historical Precedent: A few early church figures, notably St. Jerome, were also not settled on the status of these writings.
    So unlike the Protestant propaganda that portrays Luther as a vibrant visionary, he was simply repeating something that had come before him.
    We should also note that, while Jerome may have had his own feelings about these writings, he did not attempt to invalidate them or remove them from the Latin Vulgate which he, himself, wrote....
Score:
Jerome - 1
Luther - 0

New Testament books.... also questioned by Luther

    During his personal edits and translation in 1522 of the New Testament, Martin Luther openly questioned the apostolic authority and divine inspiration of four specific books: Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation.
    He moved these to the very end of his German translation and did not include them in his table of contents numbering. Basically he left them in limbo.
Maybe he thought no one would notice...I dunno

Why Luther Questioned These Books

Hebrews: Luther objected to passages (like Hebrews 6 and 10) that he thought denied a second repentance to sinners who fell away.
    He felt this contradicted the gospel of continuous grace. This was his own self-interpretation, of course.
    The historic Church had never supported any such interpretation of these passages, permanently denying God's forgiveness to repentant sinners. There were some early apostate groups (3rd century), like the Novationists, that used Hebrews 6 and 10 to deny Church readmission to those who fell away.
    But The Church universally rejected them and this idea, establishing that no sin is beyond God's mercy if a person sincerely repents.
    Either Luther didn't know this or he didn't care. Considering that he was a Catholic priest, himself, it is hard to imagine he was unaware of this position.
He simply didn't like it


James: Luther famously called it an "epistle of straw" because James 2 states that, "faith without works is dead." This directly clashed with one of Luther’s pet, core doctrines, that of justification by faith alone (sola fide).... so he did what any stubborn changeling would do: he tossed it aside and kept his own version.

Jude: He noted that the letter quotes from non-biblical, apocryphal texts (like the Book of Enoch) and his opinion was that it was a late copy of 2 Peter, rather than an original apostolic letter.

Revelation: Luther never did grasp the cryptic, allegorical nature of this book. He stated that Christ was neither clearly taught nor recognized within it, and that a prophetic book should have clearer visions.
    Okay, well and good. We all struggle a little with Revelations.
    But he didn't seem to have problems with other allegorical works like Ezekiel, or Sirach – which doesn't mention Jesus even allegorically.

Why He Didn't Remove Them

    This is one place where we should give Luther a bit of due credit. 
    Despite his strong doubts, Luther didn't remove these books from the Bible. He actually respected the deep history of The Church, at least in the beginning, even if he wasn't happy with the practices of some men in The Church.
    So he left the disputed books in the canon for readers to judge themselves...BUT...it was sort of backhand move, because he assigned them a lower theological status so people would not put much emphasis on them.
    That didn't really work, though, because today, Protestant and Catholic Bibles still include all four books.... and these books remain a hotly contested quadrangle that everyone wrangles over to this day!
    But that was Luther - the "reformation" was born of such , "maneuverings."

    The Catholic Church responded to Martin Luther’s biblical and theological sleight of hand by convening the Council of Trent (1545–1563), which officially launched the Catholic Counter-Reformation.

    Instead of compromising with reformists and their movement (Luther died in 1546), the Church firmly rejected Luther’s critiques and chnges and formally established Catholic doctrine.

The Response to Luther's Biblical Changes

Declared the Canon Complete: In 1546, the Council issued a decree definitively listing all 73 books of the Catholic Bible.
    This officially included the seven Old Testament books that Luther moved to the Apocrypha, which Catholics call the Deuterocanonical books.

Issued Anathemas: The Council declared that anyone who did not accept all 73 books as sacred and canonical was anathema (formally excommunicated).

EXCOMMUNICATED?! EGADS!
    
    All joking aside, this move is greatly misunderstood. It didn't mean that goons would show up and haul anyone off to some Catholic gulag; no black-robed hit men would come to 'rub out' excommincants.
    Rather, excommunication is Teh Church's, “wake up call,” a second chance to reform oneself and return to the loving embrace of the one and only Church which Christ set into motion. As we observed above, The Church maintains that one is above remediation, forgiveness and reconciliation.
    But by then, the die was cast. Those who were intent on going their own fractured way, many who were getting rich and fat as,  “reformists,” they were not going to give that up.

Affirmed the Vulgate: The Church declared the Latin Vulgate translation to be the sole authoritative edition for public readings, disputations, and preaching.
    This went against Luther’s emphasis on vernacular translations from original Hebrew and Greek.
    But it also forgotten that The Church wished to maintain a single consistent form across the vast territory for which it had pastoral responsibility...it fosters harmonization for all. That's why Latin is STILL the official language of The Church.
    Church critics also handily push aside the fact that The Church had already translated the Bible into numerous vernacular versions BEFORE the fracture of the Reformation. It's more convenient to overlook that reality.



SUMMARY: The Response to Luther's Theological Changes

Lutheran Doctrine	Council of Trent Response / Decree
Sola Fide (Faith Alone)	Decreed that salvation requires both faith and good works, adhering to the original Christian concept that faith without action is dead.
Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone)	Affirmed that Sacred Tradition and the teaching authority of the Magisterium are in the same balance as the Bible. They don't supercede Scripture, they don't overthrow it. Rather, they all work together, like the legs on a 3-legged stool.
Two Sacraments (Baptism & Communion)	Reaffirmed all seven traditional sacraments as physically necessary for salvation. Leave any out because you've told yourself they aren't neccessary, like baptism or the Eucharist, for example, etc.....and you are at risk.
Rejection of Purgatory / Indulgences	Validated the existence of Purgatory and the spiritual usefulness of indulgences - though it banned the sale of them for money.