Why is the book of Esther shorter in the Protestant Bible than it is in the Catholic Bible?

1) Not only Esther, but also Daniel

http://www.bible-reviews.com/charts_scriptures_d.h...

2) Why is the book of Esther shorter in the Protestant Bible than it is in the Catholic Bible?

English Protestant bibles generally separate those Old Testament Scriptures approved by the Jews from those Old Testament Scriptures not approved by the Jews. This separate section is known as Apocrypha. Many modern bible editions omit the Apocrypha, but many still retain them as well. In the specific case of Esther, the "Additions to Esther" are included with Esther in Roman Catholic bibles, but are either separated into the Apocrypha or omitted from Protestant bibles.

3) Is the implication that the deleted chapters were not divinely inspired or essential to the story of Esther?

Yes. The Anglican Church decided in 1563 (The 39 Articles) that the Scriptures of the Apocrypha were not sufficiently reliable to use for the formation of Christian doctrine. This teaching was adopted by most succeeding English Protestant sects. However, The 39 Articles also specifically included those Scriptures in their bibles. The Anglican Communion continues to use the Apocrypha in their religious services and in their bibles. In the early 1600s - shortly after the first publication of the King James Version - a law was enacted in England *preventing* anyone from publishing a bible that omitted the Apocrypha (a practice which appears to have originated with the Puritans). However, by the 1800s the practice of omitting the Apocrypha from English Protestant bibles became the norm rather than the exception.

Some Protestant bibles that include the Apocrypha (in some editions) are:

NRSV

RSV

CEV

KJV

ESV (Feb 2009)

REB

GW

GNB

RV (English Revised Version)

Jim, http://www.bible-reviews.com/

Esther is dated by most scholars to the 3rd or 4th century BCE. The extra chapters, which are only in Greek -- they do not appear in the Hebrew original -- showed up two centuries later. Esther is essentially a romantic novelette, a piece of historical fiction with a powerful nationalist message embedded; the extra chapters seem to have been added to make the story more pious in character, and to suggest that the story is an allegory for the relationship of the Jews to God.

The two parts were put together when the Septuagint translation of the Tanakh was prepared.

Martin Luther felt that the whole book was doubtful -- he saw no value in the romantic story. But it was too firmly established as part of the Tanakh to be removed. Many critics of the canon, Christian and Jewish, felt that the later insertions to Esther were not "inspired". The Catholic Church decreed that they were at the Council of Trent, probably as a reaction to the Reformation, which denied them.

Protestant Bible

Some of the ancient copies of Esther do not include portions that are included in later versions. Esther is somewhat noteworthy because, although it appears in the Bible, at least the Protestant version contains absolutely no direct reference to God. This is because the Greek translation of the Old Testament (known as the Septuagint) contains several verses and even chapters that are not in the older Jewish texts. Because the Catholic Church accepted all of the Septuagint (or more correctly, the Latin-translated Vulgate), as Divinely Inspired, they included all of it.

During the Protestant Reformation however, much of the Vulgate came under renewed scrutiny. Because these portions of Esther were not in the older texts, they were considered additions by men, and therefore discarded in Protestant texts.

Catholic bible is different, both were originally written at the same time, its a matter of choice which one you like the best,

as for me I WANT TO READ ALL THE INFORMATION i CAN GET AND NOT REPLY ON SOME PREACHER TO TELL ME WHAT TO READ

Don't let anyone tell you the King James version is the only choice, its only the version that a king of England liked a very very long time ago,.

quite frankly, because people were still arguing about it way back them, not much has changed.

I don't know where you got this nonsense from. The book of Esther is in the bible, and the bible, the same bible, is used by both catholics and protestants.

There is no such thing as a "Catholic" bible or a "Protestant" bible.

There are, however many translations, and it was common for catholics to use older translations longer than protestants.

The Vulgate is the older translation that many catholics prefer, and does not suffer from some of the editing that later translations include.

For instance, most modern translations say that "a band of men" arrested Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, whereas the Vulgate uses the original "A Cohort" which is six hundred men.

Catholics also tend to have translations which do not leave out the Apocrypha, which was left out of later translations simply to save money on the printing costs.

I suggest you try reading them both.

The King James version of the bible has 7 books completely removed and many verses removed from other books.

Martin Luther removed Tobit, Judith, Baruch, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], 1 and 2 Maccabees from the Old Testament. Plus he removed parts of Esther and Daniel. He also tried to remove Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation from the New Testament, but they were later restored by his followers.

I hope I don't sound like I am slamming anything, I'm not trying to.

because they were not written in hebrew. meaning they were added later in church history after the original bible was put together. martin luther rightly deduced that these canon's did not belong. luther translated the hebrew texts into german so that it could be read by all. up until this point the average person was not permitted to read the bible at all. when that happens, authority often becomes corrupt which is what happened with the early catholics.

Thank you for bringing this up. Esther is just about my favorite Old Testament book and I did not know the Catholic rendition has added material. I will check this out. Thanks.

mostly because the protestant churches sought to remove anything that would support issues they disagreed with in the church