In one of the comments on my earlier post, “Answering Nine Protestant Arguments About the Bible,” a reader named Drew asks is the Council of Carthage considered as canonical the apocryphal book sometimes called “Greek Esdras” (also known, confusingly enough as 1 Esdras, 3 Esdras, and Esdras A). The reason there are so many different confusing names is that the Early Church Fathers referred to four different Books as “Esdras” or “Ezra.” These are:
- The Book of Ezra;
- The Book of Nehemiah;
- “Greek Esdras”: Basically, the Book of Ezra with about four chapters added.
- “Latin Esdras”: Sometimes called the Apocalypse of Ezra, it’s a set of prophesies.
Catholics and Protestants agree that #1 and #2 are inspired by the Holy Spirit, but that #3 and #4 aren’t. What we can’t seem to agree upon is what to call those four. Jerome called these 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, 3 Esdras, and 4 Esdras. Simple enough. But the Septuagint treated Ezra and Nehemiah as one Book, called “Esdras B,” and called Greek Esdras “Esdras A.” Modern Bibles make it even worse: they often call the first two Books “Ezra” and “Nehemiah,” and when Greek and Latin Esdras as included, they’re listed as 1 and 2 Esdras. So “1 and 2 Esdras” could refer to the two canonical Books, or the two apocryphal books, depending on who’s writing. It’s a mess. I’m avoiding the numbering and lettering completely, and calling them Ezra, Nehemiah, Greek Esdras, and Latin Esdras.
Basically, Drew’s question is, “What the Council of Carthage said that the ‘two books of Ezra’ were canonical, did they mean Ezra and Nehemiah, or Ezra-Nehemiah and Greek Esdras?” Here’s what he writes:
Evening, all. I’m a Protestant being dragged (at times) and walking whistling (at other times) towards Catholicism, and this post provides some nice responses to commonly raised objections, so I appreciate it (whistle, whistle). I do, however, have a question about the canon of Scripture approved by the Council of Carthage in its 24th canon. Named among the OT books are “two books of Ezra.” In the Vulgate (later, agreed upon version, I suppose), this is 1 and 2 Esdras which correspond to Ezra and Nehemiah in modern Bibles, two books accepted by all. In the Masoretic text, these two canonical books are a single book, Ezra, and that’s the only Ezra-related book included. However, in the Septuagint, Ezra and Nehemiah were considered one book so-called Esdras B. Included in some versions of the Septuagint was also Esdras A which corresponds to the non-canonical (for Protestants and Catholics but canonical for a number of Eastern traditions) book of Esdras A (Septuagint) a.k.a. 3 Esdras (Vulgate) a.k.a. 1 Esdras (Protestant reckoning).So, what did the Fathers at Carthage have in mind when they approved two books of Esdras? If they meant Septuagint Esdras B (good) and Esdras A (bad), then I think we’ve hit a tough spot, considering that the Council of Trent affirmed “the first book of Esdras, and the second which is entitled Nehemias” in Session 4 and not the writing contained in Esdras A. Now, I recognize that the Carthaginian canon 24 isn’t super clear about their point of reference. They could have conceivably had the Vulgate in mind since the council was held in 419 and the Vulgate composed by the end of the fourth century, but Vulgate manuscripts from those early centuries are absent or inconsistent, or so I read, and the OT contents continued to be in flux for a good while after Jerome’s work, finally being closed at Trent. If my “facts” are off, please let me know. Following these funny names down historical rabbit holes sometimes leaves me a little lost.
Is this one of those give ’em the benefit of the doubt situations? It’s tough for me, really, since Trent possibly disagreeing with Carthage/Roman approval has some serious implications. I’d appreciate whatever information you can offer. Thanks a million.
This is a very good question, and took a while to find the answers for. In case you’re ever asked this, or ever wonder it yourself, here’s what I found.
First of all, Hugh Pope, O.P., in The Third Book of Esdras and the Tridentine Canon, Journal of Theological Studies, Vol. VIII (1907), available here, starting at page 218, already answered this. Pope’s basic point is that we know that (a) Jerome rejected Greek Esdras, and that (b) Jerome and Augustine debated the proper status of the Deuterocanon. Yet we never see St. Augustine, the great defender of the Council of Carthage, defending Greek Esdras — this suggests, but doesn’t prove, that he didn’t think it was canonical, either.
That argument is good, but I think there’s a way to bolster it. After all, the question Drew’s raising is essentially: did the Council of Carthage recognize Ezra and Nehemiah as one Book or two? If they thought Ezra and Nehemiah were one Book, then the reference to the “two Books of Ezra” must mean Ezra, Nehemiah, and something else. That’s trouble. But if they thought Ezra and Nehemiah were two Books, then the reference to the “two Books of Ezra” obviously meant these two.
That’s a helpful test, because it makes the answer much clearer. If you look at the way that the early Christians, and particularly those early Christians who used the Greek version, spoke of it, it’s clear that they did, in fact, understand Ezra and Nehemiah to be two separate Books put together.
To take the clearest example, Eusebius, in describing the canon used by Origen, said that it included “Esdras, First and Second in one, Ezra, that is, ‘An assistant.’” From his description, there’s no question that Eusebius is referring to Ezra and Nehemiah, grouped together in what the Septuagint called “Esdras B.” and Origen just called Ezra. And we can tell from his testimony a few important things:
- The two Books were called First and Second Esdras;
- The two Books were sometimes grouped together as one;
- Despite being grouped together, Christians were still aware that they were really two separate Books.
(As an aside, many Jewish and early Christian canons lumped the Twelve Minor Prophets together as one Book, but everyone knew that they had separate authors). Now, Origen lived from about 182-253 A.D., and Eusebius lived from 263-339, both well before the Third Council of Carthage in 397. So it’s not as if this is some development centuries after Carthage. It was common knowledge well before.
To take more examples, Athanasius‘ canon (367 A.D.) notes “Again Ezra, the first and second are similarly one book.” And Cyril of Jerusalem: “the first and second of Esdras are counted one.” And even the dubious Canon LX of the Council of Laodicea numbers the two Books of Esdras as a single Book.
So I think that there’s a wealth of evidence from prior to the Council of Carthage that the early Christians realized that Ezra and Nehemiah (which they called “First and Second Esdras”) were two separate Books, despite being generally grouped as one. Given that, when Carthage refers to First and Second Esdras, it seems plain that they mean the same thing as Eusebius — those canonical Books we now call Ezra and Nehemiah.
Of course, this conclusion not only comports with the other Patristic evidence, but it avoids the pratfalls of the opposite conclusion, that the Church could create a canon and then somehow just forget about one of the canonical Books without anyone noticing. That conclusion, even if it were grammatically possible based upon the wording of the Council of Carthage, frankly seems unrealistic.
Props for “pratfalls”. Is it possible to use that in every blog post?
Garsh, Joe.
I’m blushing from the publicity. And lest I appear too clever to your happy readers, let’s give credit where it’s due. The question was not mine, originally. I was recently weaving my way through some posts on the canon on Beggars All Reformation and Apologetics and found the question in the context of a debate between William Webster and Gary Michuta. Here’s the link:
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2007/04/michuta-canon-dilemma.html
I hadn’t browsed through all of the material of the debate but had filed it away for further research when I saw what you had written on the canon. Opportunity strikes! Now, had I been willing to expend a little elbow grease on this topic at the time, I would have seen that John Betts handily addresses the question in much the same way that you do and backs it up with a tidal wave of other information:
http://catholic-legate.com/Apologetics/Scripture/Articles/EsdrasAndTheEarlyChurch.aspx
http://catholic-legate.com/Apologetics/Scripture/Articles/EsdrasRe-examined.aspx
(I’ll forgive their kitschy web design.)
Thanks for your thoughtful answer, too. It saved me some time and got me working on the issue rather than letting it fester. I do wonder about how the situation unfolded at Trent and why there were the votes of “non-canonical” and “pass” that are detailed in the Beggars All post and, apparently, by Michuta. I haven’t read his book.
And the issue being brought up (ad nauseam) in the Called to Communion thread on the canon over Cardinal Cajetan and an alleged band of influential Catholics objecting to Deuterocanon inclusion leading up to Trent is interesting, too. Perhaps this is why Trent felt it necessary to re-declare the canon (I say re-declare assuming that Hippo/Carthage were accepted as the infallibly-defined canon, though regional councils). Or perhaps the canon wasn’t considered globally-infallibly-defined until Trent. Betts speaks on Trent some in the second link to good effect, I think, but he doesn’t address the Cajetan issue. Maybe your discussion on CTC will get around to him, so I won’t ask you more about it here.
Regardless, Esdras is an interesting question, and I thank you and John Betts, wherever he is out there in the world of D&D-themed websites, for your work on it.
I like breathing in the clean air of brotherly discussion that your site provides, but don’t make me out to be famously insightful. It’d be bad for my too-puffed-up head. Carry on, and so shall I.
Peace and hope.
Drew
Drew,
Hope I didn’t embarrass you too much! Your latest question is:
“I do wonder about how the situation unfolded at Trent and why there were the votes of “non-canonical” and “pass” that are detailed in the Beggars All post and, apparently, by Michuta. I haven’t read his book. “
Unless I’m terribly mistaken, Carrie at Beggars All was being a bit loose with the truth. She refers to the “underwhelming canon vote” at Trent, but the canon was approved unanimously. What wasn’t approved unanimously, and in fact, passed with only a 24-15 vote (with 16 abstaining) was attaching an anathema to the denial of the Catholic canon.
In other words, should the Church declare that the proper canon of Scripture is something which must be accepted on peril of damnation? On the one hand, getting the Books of the Bible correct is very important. But on the other hand, an anathema isn’t something to toss around lightly. Frankly, I’m not sure how I would have voted, if I were in that position.
So the question wasn’t on whether this Bible was the correct one, but on how severe the consequences of denying that Bible were. To pretend that debate signaled an uncertainty at Trent at which Books were in the Bible is either dishonest or ignorant. And Carrie doesn’t seem ignorant on this point — in the comments on part IV, she concedes that this is what the debate was really about: http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2008/01/underwhelming-trent-vote-part-4.html
I’ve found that while some of the anti-Catholic attacks on Beggars All are thoughtful and serious points worthy of consideration and refutation, other attacks are lazy or desperate. There’s a desire to cling to any weapon, not matter how feeble, if it can be used to assault the Catholic Church.
After all, does it really tarnish the Catholic Church’s reputation that She was slow to issue an anathema? Because Carrie isn’t complaining that they ultimately issued the anathema, but that they did it on a 44% plurality. Of course, had the Council Fathers overwhelmingly voted to attach an anathema, they’d be criticized by Beggars All for that, too. Just read how they describe Trent’s treatment of the subject of justification, and you’ll see what I mean.
I’m reminded of something G.K. Chesterton said in Orthodoxy about the rabid foes of Christianity. After hearing their many and contradictory reasons for hating Christianity, he concluded:
“It looked not so much as if Christianity was bad enough to include any vices, but rather as if any stick was good enough to beat Christianity with. What again could this astonishing thing be like which people were so anxious to contradict, that in doing so they did not mind contradicting themselves?”
God bless, and I hope you find your way into the One Church worthy of such constant spiritual bombardment,
Joe.
Joe,
Nay, I was not embarrassed, but I did want to be forthright. I’ve had to learn to suit up and wield my grain-of-salt dispenser liberally in these and many other matters along my way, but that’s only been in the process of practicing youthful credulity, getting confused, and scratching my poor excuse for a beard. And the Chesterton quote, as well as Newman’s similar historical statements, ring Roman, surely, yet many from all parties would do well to practice a little more brotherly love. From what I’ve seen, that’s faithfully pursued here, which is why I say the air is so fresh.
Your erudite elucidation of the Tridentine vote is appreciated, too. Unanimous approval is a pretty strong statement, I guess. Do you know where I can look at other voting results (since, if everything is unanimous, nothing is, you know)?
I’m looking into Cardinal Cajetan stuff and may write a comment on it at CTC soon enough, fyi.
Have a good weekend.
Drew
Drew,
Thanks, and you have a great weekend yourself. Unfortunately, I don’t know where one can find the acts of the Council in English. Gary Michuta quotes from (and provides PDF excerpts from) some of the relevant [Latin] texts here (http://www.handsonapologetics.com/44percent.htm), but beyond that, I’m not sure.
Anyone else have any clue where to get the acts of the Council of Trent (not the canons, but the acts describing each vote)?
In Christ,
Joe.
As a Reformed Evangelical Protestant with degrees in philosophy who has just stumbled on this, I find your argument wafer-thin.
You conclude that your rationalization ‘comports with other Patristic evidence’, but at best it’s an argument by narrative, and you think your reading of the events and records available is a good one. But the problem is obvious. You’re framing the narrative precisely to lead to your current beliefs. It’s crushingly circular.
And that was the best option. The other is simply a fallacy of arguing from negative consequences: “it avoids the pratfalls of the opposite conclusion, that the Church could create a canon and then somehow just forget about one of the canonical Books without anyone noticing.”
In translation you’re saying, “I’m taking for granted Catholicism is true – it can’t be as Protestants say because that would make Catholicism false.” Your conclusion isn’t argued for, it’s the premise. It’s horrific intellectual dishonesty. Petitio principii from start to finish.
Stephen,
This is a four year old post, but I’ll bite: How is the argument circular? How is it a rationalization?
The question in the post was what the Council of Carthage meant by the ‘two books of Ezra.’ I gave evidence showing that when other near-contemporary sources used this, they meant Ezra and Nehemiah. This is a point that I think a good many Reformed scholars would actually concede, since “Greek Esdras” wasn’t widely received as canonical in the West. Even Calvin College’s CCEL concedes this point (see footnote 1770 here).
Merry Christmas,
Joe
Four years on again; but may I chip in?
Your citation of Hugh Pope is undermined alas; in that Pope was labouring under two fundamental misapprehensions. Firstly, Pope thought that 3 Esdras (of the Clementine Vulgate) corresponded to the Old Latin translation of Greek Esdras A. Hence he concluded that, since Augustine (and other Fathers) did not cite the 3 Esdras text as ‘Ezra’; they did not consider it to be canonical. But in fact there was a later Latin translation of Esdras A, found in the Codex Colbertinus (for Ezra the Old Latin is more recent than the Vulgate). This text corresponds exactly to almost all Augustine’s Ezra citations. So we can be certain that this Old Latin ‘First Ezra’ was considered to be canonical (by Augustine at least). Secondly, as Pierre-Maurice Bogaert has confirmed, the Vercelli manuscript of the Old Latin text provides both First Ezra (corresponding to Codex Colbertinus) and Second Ezra (translating Ezra/Nehemiah Esdras B in full). So we can also be certain that Augustine made very little use of Old Latin ‘Second Ezra’, and in particular never cites the ‘Ezra’ sections from Old Latin ‘Second Ezra’. Thomas Denter has confirmed the same for every other Latin Father; Old Latin Ezra/Nehemiah was only ever used as a supplement to ‘First Ezra’, for those parts not found in what was considered the canonical text.
Also relying on Bogaert; I can see that you have misled yourself in respect of both Jerome and Origen. Jerome does indeed say that the Septuagint has two Ezra books ‘derived from one’ in the Hebrew. But he is explicit that this derivation is that of ‘variant translations’; the two books of Ezra in the Septuagint are, he says, different versions of the same Hebrew original. So Jerome cannot be referring here to what we now call the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah; as they do not translate the same underlying Hebrew text. Jerome’s two books of Ezra must be the same as Augustine’s – that is Ezra A and Ezra B of the Septuagint. The same equally is true of Origen. As Gallagher and Meade point out, almost all Origen’s ‘Ezra’ citations are from Septuagint Ezra A. So one of Origen’s ‘two derived from one’ must be Ezra A. Which in turn means that the two cannot be identified with supposed ancient ‘Ezra’ and ‘Nehemiah’ text. In fact there is no surviving material or textual evidence anywhere for modern Ezra and Nehemiah being separated before the medieval period (either in Greek or Latin). All the patristic texts you cite are compatible with the ancient two books of Ezra corresponding to Old Latin First Ezra and Second Ezra from the Vercelli bible. Which is why you will only find one book of Ezra-Nehemiah (entitled ‘Ezra’) in the current (Stuttgart) scholarly edition of the Vulgate – with the full imprimatur of the Catholic Church.
kind regards
Tom
Tom where does Jerome say its due to varient translations and where does he say there off the same hebrew orginal?
In the prologue to Ezra, Jerome describes the books of Ezra in the ‘seventy interpreters’ as “quorum exemplaria varietas ipsa lacerata et eversa demonstrat’ ; so: ‘whose variant translations demonstrate them as torn and perverse’. He contrasts these two books with the one volume of Ezra as set out amongst the ‘twenty-four elders’ in the Hebrew original: ‘apud Hebraeos Ezrae Neemiaeque sermones in unum volumen coartantur” The key term here is ‘exemplaria’; which in Jerome designates a translation; as in his favourite witticism “apud Latinos tot sint exemplaria quot codices’ : amongst Latins there are as many translations as manuscripts.
“In my version I translated whatever was not contained in the Greek version or was there in a variant form” -preface to esdras
Seems St Jerome contradicts that notion,correct me if im wrong though
Not how I would render it:; the sentence is clearly intended rhetorically.
If (my words) have given, in what is translated by me, anything that is not found in the Greek, or is found otherwise (in the Hebrew); which interpreter do they mangle?
Amen!
Helpful information. Lucky me I found your web site
by chance, and I am shocked why this twist of fate didn’t came about in advance!
I bookmarked it.
Tom Henell did a very good job
I will add an important point
The Gospel itself quotes directly from 1 Esdras
We read in Mat 1: 11
(And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon)
Where we can read that Jechonias is the son of Josias?
You can’t ever find this in the western canons (nor protestant neither catholic)
Because Matthew has quoted this from
1 Esdras 1: 32
Where we can read:
(And those of the nations took Jechonias son of Josias and made him king instead of Josias his father)
That is why the Orthodox church read 1 Esdras as canonical.
Not how I would render it:; the sentence is clearly intended rhetorically.
If (my words) have given, in what is translated by me, anything that is not found in the Greek, or is found otherwise (in the Hebrew); which interpreter do they mangle?
Dear Tom,
relying on manuscripts (and on only those which we posses) can lead you to the wrong conclusions. We need to look at all the evidence and harmonize them. If you believe that Hippo/Carthage intended to canonize 1. and 2. Esdras LXX, then all the fathers who are listing the books are wrong or fail to list the books correctly as the Hebrews have them.
Origen: Esdras, First and Second in one, Ezra, that is, ‘An assistant.
Athanasius: Ezra, the first and second are similarly one book.
Cyril of Jerusalem: the first and second of Esdras are counted one.
Rufinus: and two books of Ezra, which the Hebrews reckon one
Jerome: eighth is Ezra, which itself is likewise divided amongst Greeks and Latins into two books
So do you want to say that all these fathers failed to describe the books correctly? Because at the end of the day all these fathers claim that Ezra-Nehemiah, which is one book among the Hebrews is counted as two books among the Christians. Lets suppose that we don’t have any LXX or Old Latin manuscript. Honestly answer yourself the question, how would you understand these fathers? (Especially Origen and Jerome, who both had the original Hebrew text in front of them, since Origen had it in the Hexapla and Jerome was translating the Hebrew into Latin)
But if you want to go with the manuscript tradition, then you also have the fact that the LXX in some cases separates our Ezra from Nehemiah, as Robert Hanhart’s critical edition of the LXX Esdras proves.
But what if the fathers didn’t count the books according to manuscripts (which are all diverse, for example Vaticanus omits all the books of Maccabees) but rather according to a canonical perception, which not necessarily cohered with all the manuscripts? Some fathers thought 4 Ezra is inspired, like Ambrose or Clement of Alexandria. Well ques what, Clement of Alexandria wrote in Greek, yet we don’t have a single LXX manuscript containing this book, but we have Greek fragments from Oxyrhyncus. So again, the manuscripts we have does not reflect several Church Fathers’ description.
For example lets look at Isidor of Seville who was born 560, just a century or so after the last North African council dealing with the Canon of Sciptures. Isidor gives us 3 lists. One in his Etymologies, where he lists the books of the Hebrews, and then he says that the Church also accepts the 7 deuteros (actually he omits Baruch, however elswhere he quotes Baruch as “Jeremiah”, so he subsumed Baruch under Jeremiah). So this list in the Etymologies necessarily excludes 1 Esdras LXX. In a second list in “IN LIBROS VETERIS
AC NOVI TESTAMENTI PROEMlA” he lists only one book of Esdras, possibly following the Vulgate as he says in his works that by his time Jerome’s Vulgate was widespread, or possibly he follows a missal (like the Bobbio Missal from the 7th century, which also includes only Ezra-Nehemiah as “Esdras”: https://books.google.cz/books?id=a2VCAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA176&hl=cs&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false … pages 181,182). However in the third list in his “De Ecclesiasticis officiis”, he says “Esdrae DUO”. Wait a minute, so in two occasions he says one book and in another occasion two books? So what was Isidor following in his third list? I believe he followed the universal notion that Ezra wrote two books, that of his own book “Ezra” and the words of Nehemiah, and the author of these both books is Ezra. In fact he confirms this in his Etymologies: “The book of Ezra is entitled after its own author; in its text are contained the words of Ezra himself and of Nehemiah as well.”
So the first two books of Esdras for Isidor are Ezra and Nehemiah, even though when he quotes Baruch, he quotes it as Jeremiah, which means he was familiar with the Old Latin, where Baruch was part of Jeremiah. But even just using the common sense, why should any of the church fathers or councils think that Ezra wrote two almost identical books which were labeled 1 Esdras and 2 Esdras? That makes no sense. Rather 1Esdras LXX is just a different recension or version of the canonical Ezra-Nehemiah, but no one can think that both were written by Ezra. Elllis in his book “The Old Testament in early Christianity” argues that 1Esdras LXX is a paraphrastic or midrashic version of Ezra-Nehemiah. So it has the same value as a Targum, which was a paraphrastic version of the Tahankh, but still authoritative. Yet nobody believed that the Targum is a separate version or book from the Tanakh. Even Roger Beckwith in his “Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church” argues that 1Esdras was not held as a separate canonical book, just as a different version of the Ezra-Nehemiah. So why would the Councils canonize the same book in different version? Makes no sense.
Regarding Augustin, you believe he accepted 1Esdras LXX as canonical, just because he quotes it. Well, I am not sure about that, since when he quotes it in the City of God, he says there is no prophecy recorded in the book of Esdras “PERHEPS” the story of Darius’s Bodyguards could be an exception. Wait a minute. Why “perhaps”? That seems odd to me. I rather understand this as he is not quite sure that this part of Esdras is genuine.
But if you want to prove your point by quotations, then guess what Josephus quoted 1Esdras LXX as scripture as several scholars point out. So if we follow your logic then Josephus’s canon does not match the protestant canon.
I see you are heavily relying on Bogaert. Well Bogaert also claims that the Vulgate separates Ezra and Nehemiah only since the 8th century and the motivation for this was the canonical lists of the Church (Hippo/Carthage). But allegedly the Church knew that back then in the 4-5th century the church canonized 1Esdras LXX, hence the solution was to separate Ezra and Nehemiah and call them 1 Esdras and 2 Esdras, but they could not integrate 1Esdras LXX.
My question is, how does this theory of Bogaert stand, if Bogaert in another article of his claims that Baruch was reintegrated to later Vulgate manuscripts thanks to the Visigothic, Milanese and Romanese liturgies, which included Baruch under the title “Jeremiah”? ( “Le livre de Baruch dans les manuscrits de la Bible latine. Disparition et réintégration,” Revue bénédictine 115 (2005): 286–342)
If ineed this happened to the book of Baruch, why could they also not do this with 1Esdras LXX? Or wait a minute, could it be the case that 1Esdras LXX at the end of the day was not canonized and was not included in the Church’ s liturgies? So Bogaert should be consistent and explain, why could the Church not include 1Esdras LXX into the Vulgate (as the Church did with the deuteros, even though Jerome only translated Judith, Tobit and the rest of Daniel and Esther) but rather separate Ezra and Nehemiah as 1 Esdras and 2 Esdras.
Further you brought up Denter. I have a copy of his book. Do you? Did you see the charts about the quotations of 1Esdras LXX? This book was quoted till the 4-5th century, then the quotations rapidly fall, in the west to ZERO, in the East Damascus is the only who quoted it in his time. Now answer me the question, why did this book fall into disuse both on the west and the east? What influenced the fathers not quoting it anymore? You cannot argue with Jerome’s Vulgate, since on the East nobody used it, still 1Esdras LXX fell into disuse.
Also how do you explain that the Coptic Orthodox Church, which would accept Hippo/Carthage, since these councils took place before Chalcedon, does not include 1Esdras LXX into his canon?
http://copticchurch.online/en/bible-books/
Again, you cannot argue with Jerome’s Vulgate, since the Copts used the Septuagint, and even consider Athanasius as one of their popes, yet 1Esdras LXX is not in the Coptic canon. So what happened? Well, there is only one thing that happened, and those were the Councils of Hippo and Carthage which decided the canon. So we have the Copts as independent witness to what happened in North Africa during those councils.
Taken all together, you need to deal with the language in all of the Church Fathers’ lists, you need to deal with 1Esdras LXX falling into disuse coincidently after the North African Councils, you need to deal with Isidor of Seville and you need to deal with Bogaert’s inconsistent explanation why Baruch could be reintegrated into the Vulgae, but 1EsdrasLXX not.
God Bless,
David
Dear David
Apologies for not picking this up sooner.
You put the question:
“Origen: Esdras, First and Second in one, Ezra, that is, ‘An assistant.
Athanasius: Ezra, the first and second are similarly one book.
Cyril of Jerusalem: the first and second of Esdras are counted one.
Rufinus: and two books of Ezra, which the Hebrews reckon one
Jerome: eighth is Ezra, which itself is likewise divided amongst Greeks and Latins into two books.
So do you want to say that all these fathers failed to describe the books correctly? Because at the end of the day all these fathers claim that Ezra-Nehemiah, which is one book among the Hebrews is counted as two books among the Christians.”
Three things, I propose, are not disputed for these fathers:
– that the Greeks reckon two canonical books of Ezra: which they call Ezra A , and Ezra B.
– that the Jews reckon one canonical book of Ezra; (corresponding to modern Ezra/Nehemiah).
– that the total of Old Testament books according to the Hebrew tradition must be reckoned as twenty-two; as that is the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet.
The issues for debate, I suggest, are:
– whether the two Greek books referred to by Origen as Esdras A and Esdras B are the same as those referred to by Cyril and Athansius as first and second Esdras;
– whether all, or any, of these fathers understand two Greek books of Ezra as being other than the texts entitled Esdras A and Esdras B in both surviving contemporary manuscripts (Vaticanus and Alexandrinus);
– whether the Latin Fathers – Jerome, Rufinus, Augustine – when they refer to two books of Ezra (reckoned as one by the Hebrews) understand a different division of texts as that understood by the Greek fathers.
I suspect we differ in our understanding of the signficance of the third, undisputed, point – that the books of the Old Testament must be reckoned as twenty-two in the Hebrew. I understand you as reading the common statement that the two books of Ezra are to be reckoned as one, as implying that they must be a two divisions of a single text (hence referring to Ezra/Nehemiah), where I see it simply as registering the numbers up so as to reach this pre-determined total. In support of my reading is Jerome’s explicit statement that the two books of the Greek LXX are widely variant translations (exemplaria varietas) of the same underling Hebrew. Which strongly implies that the two Greek texts that Jerome knows correspond to Esdras A and Esdras B in our the manuscript tradition; and not to Ezra and Nehemiah as seperate texts.
And when we tally the quotations from Ezra in each father; this corresponds with my reading (in my view) better than yours. For instance, when Athanasius cites a text found in both Esdras A and Esdras B. So in Apologia ad Constantium 18, Athanasius cites Esdras A: 5, not Esdras B:3. Which shows that, for Athanasius at least, one of his canonical books of Ezra must have been Esdras A. All of these early fathers – except Jerome – appear from quotations to have considered Esdras A to be canonical.
Hence the logical and parsimonious inference, that when these fathers refer to two books of Ezra ‘reckoned as one’ all mean the same two – Esdras A (corresponding to 1 Esdras) and Esdras B (corresponding to Ezra/Nehemiah); and that furthermore the Council of Carthage understood exactly the same two books in the Old Latin version, as being the two books of Ezra to be counted as canonical.
I fully agree that we cannot assume that an early manuscript dividing the manuscripts of Ezra/Nehemiah into two books in accordinace with modern practice was impossible – there are indications of a minor break in the text of the book in some, though not others. But no surviving text in Greek or Latin earlier than the tenth century survives that divides Ezra/Nehemiah into two distinct books and titles – and in the case of the Vulgate tradition, this is represents a considerable number of witnesses. How come all those that might conform to this hypothetical divided text
happen to have disappeared? It is much more likely that tenth century century scribes, reading “two books of Ezra” in the canons of Carthage and other early councils, introduced this division to be consistent with them.
As to your question as to why, in the west, citations of 1 Esdras cease from the 5th century onwards; this is much more likely due to the increasing influence of the Vulgate Old Testament – which only counted one book of Ezra (corresponding to Ezra/Nehemiah) – rather than to the decisions of local African councils. In the case of Bede, for example, we can see this readily demonstrated, as we have the complete biblical text with which he was familiar surviving inthe Codex Amiatinus. And that only has one, undivided, book of Ezra.
David
I am not sure what you are inferring from the exclusion of 1 Esdras from the modern canon list of the Egyptian Coptic church. I’m afraid I have been unable to confirm the date at which this rule may have been adopted; do you have a reference/
In the 4th and 5th centuries of course – at the time of the Council of Carthage, and of the creation of the Vulgate Old Testament – there was no distinct Coptic church; church leaders in Egypt read the bible in Greek, as is clear from Athanasius’s festal letter. We do know that, by this time, the whole of the Greek Septuagint had been translated into Sahidic Coptic; and that this translation included bot h Esdras A and Esdras B, in accordance with Athanasius’s canon. So in this period, Egyptiona Coptic-speakers – just as much as Greek-speakers – would have read Esdras A as canonical.
How this may have changed many centuries later is, besides the point.
I am going to address your comment point by point. I put your claims in quotes.
“– that the Greeks reckon two canonical books of Ezra: which they call Ezra A , and Ezra B.”
Which father called the books of Esdras “Ezra A” and “Ezra B”? They never called them this way.
“– that the Jews reckon one canonical book of Ezra; (corresponding to modern Ezra/Nehemiah).”
No, what they are saying is that the two books of Esdras/Ezra in the Christian list corresponds to the one book of Ezra, which the Hebrews have in one books.
Lets just take Cyril of Jerusalem: “the first and second books of the Kings are AMONG THE HEBREWS one book; also the third and fourth one book. And IN LIKE
MANNER, the first and second of Chronicles are with them one book; and the first and second of Esdras are counted one”
“– whether the two Greek books referred to by Origen as Esdras A and Esdras B are the same as those referred to by Cyril and Athanasius as first and second Esdras;”
Origen never referred to “Esdras A and Esdras B”. He quotes Nehemiah as “Second Esdras” two times if I remember correctly. He ever says “Esdras B”. If you want, I look up the quotes for you. As for Cyril and Athanasius, I already demonstrated that for them the two books are the same as the one for the Jews.
So what is Cyrill saying? That just as First and Second Kings is in ONE book, IN LIKE MANNER first and second Esdras is one book. The way of coupling First and Second Kings in ONE, THE SAME WAY First and Second is for the Jews one. This means that Cyril recognized 2 books of Ezra, and this two are in ONE book for the Jews. This necessarily excludes Esdras A + Esdras B in from the LXX codices, since you cannot argue that the Jews had these two in one. And the same thing is said by the other fathers as well.
“whether all, or any, of these fathers understand two Greek books of Ezra as being other than the texts entitled Esdras A and Esdras B in both surviving contemporary manuscripts (Vaticanus and Alexandrinus);”
First of all, why should they correspond to Esdras A and Esdras B from precisely these two codices? You need to prove this point. Bogaert also mentioned in his article (I have the original article published by Brepols) that there are indeed LXX tradition that separate Ezra and Nehemiah and reckon these as two distinct books. So why go with one particular manuscript? The burden is on you to show why, if you claim so.
“– whether the Latin Fathers – Jerome, Rufinus, Augustine – when they refer to two books of Ezra (reckoned as one by the Hebrews) understand a different division of texts as that understood by the Greek fathers.”
Why would they? If you suggest this debate, you need to substatniate why. You just suggest this, but without basis. In fact, Augustine claims that:
“and the two books of Maccabees, and the two of Ezra, which last look more like a sequel to the continuous regular history which terminates with the books of Kings and Chronicles”
If the two books of Ezra are a CONTINUOUS narrative, then it cannot be an OVERLAPING narrative (Esdras A and Esdras B are overllaping). The matter of fact is, Augustine tells you, which books are parallel to each other:
“next, four books of Kings, and two of Chronicles, these last not following one another, but running parallel”
So if he intended to include Esdras A and Esdras B, he should have noted that these two also are running parallel. But he didn´t, rather he see the two books of Ezra as a continuous history.
Jerome says this in his Helmeted Prologue:
“octavus Ezras, qui et ipse similiter apud Graecos et Latinos in duos libros divisus est
Dīvidō means divide, separate
In his prologue to Ezra says:
“quia et apud Hebraeos Ezrae Neemia eque sermones in unum volumen coartantur”
coartō means press together, compress, contract, confine.
Hence Jerome two times confirms, that the one Ezra, which the Hebrews have are DIVIDED into two separate books, or vice versa – the two books of Ezra, which the Christians have is the same content in Hebrew COMPRESSED into one book.
Gallagher and Mead say in their book about the Biblical lists: “„Jerome surely does not intend to include 1 Esdras in the canon here. He never translated 1 Esdras.“ (page 201, footnote 132)
“I understand you as reading the common statement that the two books of Ezra are to be reckoned as one, as implying that they must be a two divisions of a single text (hence referring to Ezra/Nehemiah), where I see it simply as registering the numbers up so as to reach this pre-determined total.”
The total number of the books in the Christian canon was always more than 22. The lists simple compare the Christian numbering with the Hebrew numbering. There is nothing else behind this.
“In support of my reading is Jerome’s explicit statement that the two books of the Greek LXX are widely variant translations (exemplaria varietas) of the same underling Hebrew.”
That doesn´t prove anything. In fact Augustine says the same about the Latin texts: “„latinorum interpretum infinita varietas“ („endless diversity of the Latin translators“) (On Christian Doctrine 2.11.16). Both Jerome and Augustine are not referring to different books but to manuscripts with different textual variances. To give you an analogy, it is as if today we can refer to KJV, NSV, NRSV and what not. But none of these have different books of Esdras or of other books. In those times the Greeks had that of the seventy, Theodotion, Aquila, Symmachus. Then recensions like that of Lucian used in Antioch (which by the way had the numbering of the books of Esdras switched – see Oesterley, An Introduction to the Books of the Apocrypha Page 133) or that of Hesychius. So yeah, they had exemplaria varietas. Jerome confirms this in his prologue to the book of Judges: ´maxime cum apud Latinos tot sint exemplaria quot codices´ (especially when among the Latins there are as many versions as there are books). Taken your logic, this would mean there are different books of Judges. No, Jerome is simply saying different manuscripts have different textual variances of the same book. Jerome is trying to say that the Hebrew manuscripts are more pristine and not corrupted, as the LXX.
“And when we tally the quotations from Ezra in each father; this corresponds with my reading (in my view) better than yours. For instance, when Athanasius cites a text found in both Esdras A and Esdras B. So in Apologia ad Constantium 18, Athanasius cites Esdras A: 5, not Esdras B:3. Which shows that, for Athanasius at least, one of his canonical books of Ezra must have been Esdras A. All of these early fathers – except Jerome – appear from quotations to have considered Esdras A to be canonical.”
Man, I own Denter´s books on this very topic. He goes through church father after church father. The fact that they are quoting, simply shows a preference. Eusebius for example prefers the Hebrew Ezra, instead of the Greek variant. And regarding Jerome, actually he also quoted the Greek Esdras, and he tells you he quotes the version of “the Seventy”. But as I said, the church had multiple versions. But the Seventy was never proclaimed as the one and only. As I mentioned Daniel was preferred to be used from the Theodotion. So did they have two Daniels? No, they had different versions of Daniel. But if you want to be consistent, then you also have to claim that for Josephus the Greek Esdras was canonical and not the Hebrew Ezra, because as Etennie Nodet and also Beckwith showed (I own both books), he almost exclusively cites the Greek Esdras as Scripture.
“Hence the logical and parsimonious inference, that when these fathers refer to two books of Ezra ‘reckoned as one’ all mean the same two – Esdras A (corresponding to 1 Esdras) and Esdras B (corresponding to Ezra/Nehemiah); and that furthermore the Council of Carthage understood exactly the same two books in the Old Latin version, as being the two books of Ezra to be counted as canonical.”
No, Carthage says nothing about Latin version or any version. Carthage merely lists books, hence you have to prove from the decree of Carthage itself that they meant Esdras A and Esdras B. Good luck to that. What you are doing is butchering “LXX codices” and “quotations” and extrapolate these to a decree which has nothing to do with them. Old Latin manuscripts are extremely fragmentary. We have no complete manuscript, unlike LXX ones, where are also not pure LXX, because Daniel is of Theodotion in each and all of them. Why didn´t they include 3-4 Maccabees then? They are also in these Codices. The Apocalypse of Esdras (4 Ezra) is also regarded to be part of the Old Latin. So why not arguing these were in the canon of Carthage? Ambrose, the Epistle of Barnabas or Clement of Alexandria quoted 4 Ezra as Scripture. See, … too many problems here with your argument. But the mane problem is, the decree of Carthage say nothing about manuscripts, it merely lists books.
“I fully agree that we cannot assume that an early manuscript dividing the manuscripts of Ezra/Nehemiah into two books in accordinace with modern practice was impossible – there are indications of a minor break in the text of the book in some, though not others. But no surviving text in Greek or Latin earlier than the tenth century survives that divides Ezra/Nehemiah into two distinct books and titles – and in the case of the Vulgate tradition, this is represents a considerable number of witnesses. How come all those that might conform to this hypothetical divided text
happen to have disappeared? It is much more likely that tenth century century scribes, reading “two books of Ezra” in the canons of Carthage and other early councils, introduced this division to be consistent with them.”
As I said, you have problems with retrieving Old Latin manuscripts. You have no complete Vetus Latin, so this is your best guess. I also mentioned that the Greek manuscripts differed – some divided Ezra and Nehemiah, some not. Lucian inversed the two.
Regarding the Vulgate manuscripts, not a single one has one book of Ezra without separation. Even Amiatinus – the earliest one divides Ezra and Nehemiah. You are wrong with the 10th Century. Even Bogaert confirms earlier ones divide Ezra and Nehemiah naming them “Esdras first” and “Esdras second” correspondingly in the Cologne manuscript. Codex Cavensis (this one is ommited by Bogaert) – late 8th, early 9th century manuscript has one Ezra. But when you look at the beginning of Nehemiah it says on the margin: “Hic Secundum Liber Incipit“
(„Here begins the second book“).
https://www.internetculturale.it/jmms/iccuviewer/iccu.jsp?id=oai%3Awww.internetculturale.sbn.it%2FTeca%3A20%3ANT0000%3ACNMD0000204849&mode=all&teca=MagTeca+-+ICCU
“As to your question as to why, in the west, citations of 1 Esdras cease from the 5th century onwards; this is much more likely due to the increasing influence of the Vulgate Old Testament – which only counted one book of Ezra (corresponding to Ezra/Nehemiah) – rather than to the decisions of local African councils. In the case of Bede, for example, we can see this readily demonstrated, as we have the complete biblical text with which he was familiar surviving inthe Codex Amiatinus. And that only has one, undivided, book of Ezra.”
If you owned Denter´s book and read it you would actually know this hypothesis is wrong. He demonstrates both Isidor and Gregory the Great used both the Old Latin and the Vulgate. They must have noticed the difference. Yet they don´t seem to care. Also when you look at the East, where the the LXX was still used, Denter demonstrates in a chart how Ezra started to gain preference and the Greek Esdras got less and less cited. Hence the Vulgate had no influence whatsoever. But even in the West, there are instances when the Greek Esdras was copied and incorporated into some Vulgate manuscripts. So even the on the West people were still aware of this book and copied it and even included in the Vulgate. But they rather went with the Hebrew Ezra.
Regarding the Copts you say:
“In the 4th and 5th centuries of course – at the time of the Council of Carthage, and of the creation of the Vulgate Old Testament – there was no distinct Coptic church; church leaders in Egypt read the bible in Greek, as is clear from Athanasius’s festal letter.We do know that, by this time, the whole of the Greek Septuagint had been translated into Sahidic Coptic; and that this translation included bot h Esdras A and Esdras B, in accordance with Athanasius’s canon. So in this period, Egyptiona Coptic-speakers – just as much as Greek-speakers – would have read Esdras A as canonical.”
Well, Athanasius omitted Maccabees from his list. So show me a those Sahidic manuscripts that omitted Maccabees in accordance with the Festal Letter. Good luck to that.
By the way, a manuscript proves nothing. Just because e.g. Alexandrinus included 3-4 Maccabees, it does not mean anyone regarded these as canonical.
I however know a Coptic deacon who masters the Coptic languages – Sahidic, Boharic, etc. He even teaches these languages on his own YT channel. I had him interviewed him on our channel. He says nothing such what you claim.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6VYFBcPZtw&t=3755s
If you want, I can have you on our channel. But be prepared. The OT canon and the books of Esdras are my favourite topic.
I actually agree with Beckwith. The Greek Esdras was nothing more than the LXX variant of Ezra (which is why Josephus quotes it as Scripture, including the addition material). But other versions were used, which did not have this book, like that of Aquila, Symmachus or Theodotion. Origen collected these and compiled the Hexampla in separate columns for comparison. No one ever said that the Hebrew Ezra is a different book from the Greek Esdras. Neither Jerome, nor Origen, who mastered both the Greek and Hebrew. They regarded as different variants. As Gallagher wrote in his book: “Jerome perhaps regarded it as a variant edition of Ezra-Nehemiah.“
David
Thanks for the long reply; but unfortunately you appear to have missed your step right at the beginning; I suggest you go back to Origen: ‘Selectae in Psalmos, 1’. There you will find that he names the two books of Ezra as ‘Esdras A and B. Which, as you know, are the titles given to the two books of Ezra in all surviving Septuagint collections. Sorry. but there it is.
Nevertheless, I think your extended comment confirms my impression that you are not reading the fathers fully. If (as you propose) we take Cyril of Jerusalem ‘Catechesis 4: 33-36’ as a particular instance, a good half of the text – paras 33 and 34 to be specific – are given to explaining how the labours of the seventy-two interpreters were able to render all twenty-two books of the Hebrew Bible into exactly twenty-two books in Greek. Any books not numbered within the twenty-two are apocryphal, and catechumens should ‘have nothing to do’ with them (para 35).
But Cyril lists the physical total of Old Testament books in Christian use as rather more than twenty-two; Cyril specifically names thirty titles (counting all twelve minor prophets under the title ‘the book of the twelve’). So, some of the Greek titles have to be grouped together to be counted. Cyril’s concern then is to make clear to which Greek titles are gathered ‘as one’ so as to comprise the essential number twenty-two – no more or less. In some cases these collective titles correspond to a single Hebrew source text, as in first and second Kingdoms; in others Cyril’s collection gathers with Hebrew-sourced texts, related Greek texts without Hebrew counterpart; as ‘first Esdras’ is gathered with ‘second Esdras’, and the ‘letter of Jeremiah’ is gathered with Jeremiah.
Cyril is not saying how each of his collections relates to a Hebrew text; only that both Hebrew and Greek texts are gathered into exactly twenty-two canonical books.
When Cyril says of the two books of Ezra (or the four books of Jeremiah) that they are ‘counted as one’, he is referring to the correspondence of their numbers with the Hebrew, not (or not necessarily) their contents.
αʹ βʹ are not title but in Greek they mean “first and second” respectively. Same way for example he counts chronicles first and second as “Παραλειπομένων αʹ βʹ” . Virtually all scholars agree that by αʹ βʹ he says “first and second”. Unless you want to claim that Παραλειπομένων αʹ βʹ (Chronicles A and B) is distinct from Chronicles first and second, which I don´t think you agree. So this claim about αʹ βʹ is totally out of relevance.
Regarding Cyril, I don´t agree. In fact the plain sense of the text is that whenever he says “first and second” is “one” AMONG THE HEBREWS, he clearly says that the Christians break down the books that the Jews count as one. Jeremiah is the same, even though it would include Baruch, Lamentation and the Epistle for the Christians. The reason is, because the oldest LXX had no separate title for Baruch, Lamentation and the Epistle. That is also clear from the most ancient citations by Church Fathers like Athenagoras or Irenaeus. They both cite Baruch as “Jeremiah”. The Vetus Latina had no separate title for Baruch, Epistle and Lamentations. This tradition on the west continued, while on the east they later (probably in the 3rd – 4th century) started to separate Baruch, Lamentations and the Epistle from Jeremiah. Read Bogaert on this very topic.
So the reason why Cyril says the Jews would include Baruch, Epistle and Lamentation is because he knows the LXX traditionally had these together under one title “Jeremiah”. However there is no tradition whatsoever that the Greek Esdras (Esdras A) and the Ezra-Nehemiah (Esdras B) was ever together under one title.
So no, I don´t agree with you and Cyril did indeed say that whenever something as First and Second is in ONE, he meant that the content is the same. And Origen obviously did mean this, because I said over and over again, Origen KNEW Hebrew, he KNEW that what was the content of the one Hebrew Ezra. There is no possible way how he could say that “Esdras A” and EZRA-NEHEMIAH is one in ANY WAY among the Hebrews. Just as Jerome KNEW that the Hebrew Ezra cannot be in any one the “compressed” one book of Esdras A and Esdras B. That is the problem that you cannot tackle with.
Hi david. Marvelous commentaries. Can we exchange some informations? I would like to know the name of the book by “Denter” that you said before. I’m studying this issue about the book of Ezra, but clearly you are so far ahead! I would like to learn from you, if you permit.
the church don’t really care what the Jews had as canonical, the church established her canon list by vote first at laodicea360 then added more books in (Rome382, Hipo393 and cartage 397) the Latin Vulgate didn’t even exist back then (it was finished in 405) , the reference those father has was the eusebian greek codex (Constantine 50 bibles) from which the code Vatican and sinaitic stand. Cyril of Jerusalem assisted to the laodicea council and he quotes esdras A as canonical in his works; as for the north africa councils, EVERY SINGLE LATIN NORTH AFRICAN father quotes ESDRAS A as scripture from Tertulian of cartage father of the latin theology until virgilius of tapsus just before the fall of cartage by the Islamic invasions in the 7th century; and from them most notably saint Agustin who assisted and later preceded those northafrican councils, so we know what those father had in mind when receiving “2 books of Esdras”.
as for the canons of Greek fathers accepted in trullo690 ALL OF THEM who wrote before the Vulgate completion, they all accepted “2 books of Esdras” as canonical in their list, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY just in case of misunderstanding, in their works they quote Esdras A as scripture under the name of Esdras, specially important is the case Athanasius of Alexandria, who not only quotes several times from Esdras A in his many works, but also in the synopsis ascribed to him, he punctually write the first sentence of every book received in the canon to avoid misunderstanding and when arrive to 1 Esdras he quotes verbatim from Esdras A. then when referring to 2 Esdras he quotes verbatim from Ezra 1:1 (the beginning of Esdras B this is the big Ezra/Nehemiah volume in Greek)
of course you can interpreter other way about the identity of the books referred by those councils and church fathers but will be an historical anachronism.
Tom also consider this, Jerome explicitly states that he was asked to translate the book of Ezra FROM HEBREW:
” It is the third year that you always write and write again, that I might translate the book of Ezra for you from Hebrew” (Prologue to the book of Ezra)
The Church knew the Hebrews don’ t have 1Esdras LXX, since they had Origen’s Hexapla. Still, the Church only wanted the Hebrew Ezra (Ezra-Nehemiah) to be translated. Why? Why didn’t they also demand a new translation of 1Esdras LXX? Or why wasn’t Jerome ask to ad the story of Darius’s bodyguards after a obelus, as he did with the deutero sections in Daniel, just because the Church read them:
“Therefore, I have shown these things to you as a difficulty of Daniel, which among the Hebrews has neither the history of Susanna, nor the hymn of the three young men, nor the fables of Bel and the dragon, which we, because they are spread throughout the whole world, have appended by banishing and placing them after the spit (or “obelus”), so we will not be seen among the unlearned to have cut off a large part of the scroll.” (Prologue to the book of Daniel)
Also Jerome’s Apology against the books of Rufinus shows that he included the Theodotion’s version of Daniel, just because the Church reads it:
“The churches choose to read Daniel in the version of Theodotion. What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches?”
So tell me, why wasn’t Jerome forced to add 1Esdras LXX, why didn’t he argue that since the Church reads it, he will include it in the Vulgate? What would be easier than that to add the story of the three bodyguards after an obelus?
Jerome also says in the Prologue: “the discourses of Ezra and Nehemiah are confined to one scroll”
Bogaert claims that “Nehemiah” is not distinguished in the Old Latin 1 Esdras Vercelli manuscript and Nehemiah was never quoted as “Nehemiah” but as “Esdras”, so the texts of Ezra and Nehemiah were never distinguished in the ancient church, yet Jerome somehow distinguishes the texts of Ezra and Nehemiah. Why? Again, Bogaert is wrong.
David.
All of this is a tad speculative, and largely arguments from analogy – “is is likely that Jerome would have done this here, if elsewhere he did the something other”. I am afraid we cannot get inside Jerome’s head; so we have to rely on what he said in his letters (which are fortunately an extensive source), as preserved especially in the texts extracted as ‘prologues’.
What we do know, from the prologue to Ezra, is that Jerome was determined only to translate one book of Ezra; even though he knew that the Greek witnesses recognised two. He did not – as he did with Esther – add to the Hebrew text from the common Septuagint with an obelus. No doubt there were objectors; but neither they, nor any response from Jerome, survives.
A point to remember is that Jerome did not undertake his translation of the Old Testament from the Hebrew “to order”. It is anachronistic to propose that ‘the Church” had in some form commissioned his work – or had any input into what was, and what was not, included. Jerome obviously wanted his texts to be used by his corresponents, and so did include obelised material eslewhere where this was insisted on. But not with Ezra.
“All of this is a tad speculative, and largely arguments from analogy – “is is likely that Jerome would have done this here, if elsewhere he did the something other”. I am afraid we cannot get inside Jerome’s head; so we have to rely on what he said in his letters (which are fortunately an extensive source), as preserved especially in the texts extracted as ‘prologues’.”
There is nothing speculative in here. If Carthage and the church fathers and the church by extension regarded 1 Esdras as a separate canonical book (as you argue), and as you would argue Athanasius ranks it “canonical” in his list, then its not speculative but on spot. I don´t have to read Jerome´s mind, I know what he wrote, that is his mind. He and no one else ever argued that the tale of the three guards is just as part of the Scriptures as “Susanna” and other portions in addition to the Hebrew counterparts.
“What we do know, from the prologue to Ezra, is that Jerome was determined only to translate one book of Ezra; even though he knew that the Greek witnesses recognised two. He did not – as he did with Esther – add to the Hebrew text from the common Septuagint with an obelus. No doubt there were objectors; but neither they, nor any response from Jerome, survives.”
No he is not determined. He himself says that he was demanded to translate Ezra from the Hebrew. Everyone knew the Hebrew Ezra does not have the additional material of the Guardsmen. They knew it through Origen´s Hexapla, which was known both in east and west. Augustine and Jerome were literarily arguing with each other over one word in the book of Jonah, yet you want to convince me that he was ignorant of complete 2 and half chapters of the Greek Esdras? These church fathers were really dumb then. I see you rather argue from silence then from the documents we have in possession. No offense, but quite a strange position you take. Usually as evidence is taken what we have, not what we don´t have.
“A point to remember is that Jerome did not undertake his translation of the Old Testament from the Hebrew “to order”. It is anachronistic to propose that ‘the Church” had in some form commissioned his work – or had any input into what was, and what was not, included. Jerome obviously wanted his texts to be used by his corresponents, and so did include obelised material eslewhere where this was insisted on. But not with Ezra.”
Whatever you think about this, what we know for sure is that Jerome always had the church authorities in the first place. That is why he added the additional material to Esther and Daniel, and that is why he translated Tobit and Judith
“But it is better to be judging the opinion of the Pharisees to displease and to be subject to the commands of bishops.” Prologue to Tobit
bogaert isn’t wrong, the text of ezra/nehemias was a continuous un-separated work in Hebrew, and then in its Greek translation made by theodocion (Esdras B) and was also left that way by origin in his hexapla, and the same was done in the latter Constantine patronized bibles (eusebian and athanasian codexs) even in 405AD when the Vulgate was finished/published Jerome preserved the book also translated in a single continuous volume in Latin (as can be seen in the oldest Vulgate preserved code amiatinus) the separation of Ezra/nehemias in Latin as 1 Esdras 2 Esdras didn’t occurred until the late middle ages, same goes for the Hebrew counterpart.
My 125 yr text of the d r v (per st jerome s vulgate and the english college in france) has ezra, nehemias, 1 esdras and 2 esdras (presumably 3 and 4 esdras to some). St benedict press ed. Charlotte NC