esdras

[cardenio]

Soho… another flip through the middle of my bible. The one I’ve got is not a Catholic bible, it’s kind of a default nondenom Christian Bible. First is the old testament, then the deuterocannonicals, then “some additional books,” then the new testament.

“some additonal books” included 1 and 2 Esdras and a Prayer of Manesseh(sp?). The note said that some protestants (but not the Catholic church) recognize these books as cannonical, but they were included in the Septuagint.

I was (previously) under the impression that the reason the Catholic canon includes the deuterocannonicals is because they were in the Septuagint. (or, more correctly, the Catholic canon includes the deuterocannonicals because they are God-inspired and belong in the Bible… but you know what I mean). But if there are books that are in the Septuagint but not in the Catholic canon… this does not make sense.

Please enlighten me.

 

[Zooey]

First of all, I know what you mean about the set up of Bibles like this being confusing…I am sitting here looking at what I suspect is the same Bible you have…(It sounded strangely familiar).
As far as I am able to figure this out, these are books that have never had any real recognition by any Christians, but since they were in the Jewish Bibles of the time, they gained more popularity than some of the bizarre Gnostic books that were doing the rounds.
As far as I know, Catholics have always regarded these as true “apocrypha”, in the sense of being non-canonical. However, they are often included in the “generic” Bibles that attempt to be all things to all people, because, I believe, they are used to a limited extent by Anglicans/Episcopalians. (Eastern Orthodox Christians have a different canon, too; that I can’t tell you more than that it exists).

The whole subject of what books belong in Bibles can be a confusing world…Since I have been familiar with the books that are Catholic (but not most Protestant) Bibles, I read them right along;(I’m Methodist), grateful for all the scolars who did the sorting out long ago!
The extras you mention are probably best described by saying that there are a lot of things that you could be doing than reading them, but don’t expect the same quality that you find in the real Bible, if I may use that phrase.
They are interesting remainders of the days before there was an actual canon of scriptures…
(I hope this isn’t more confusing than I meant it to be…)

 

[Verbum]

Hi Zooey,

The first Christian used the Greek bible. The version we have been handed down is traditionally called the Septuagint.The Septuagint is not a “book”. In those days, they used rolls and later some kind of book but you could never have got the whole bible in one roll or book. Very few people were able or could afford to have the whole bible, and even then the quality of the transcription was doubtful. So people collected what they could, and sometimes that was different from what someone else had collected.

When the Church made declarations in the 4th C and then in the Council of Trent it declared having “received” as inspired the books that we have today. Those other ones just are not.

There still remains some doubt among Orthodox on those various “other” books. Some accept them, others do not. Some accept them partly, some reject them totally.

Verbum

 

[BibleReader]

The Roman Catholic Bible actually includes what was originally referred to as “2 Esdras” – the books now referred to as “Ezra” and “Nehemiah.”

The King James Version also has 2 Esdras/Ezra&Nehemiah.

When 2 Esadras was included in the OT Canon, what was originally “3 Esdras” confusingly came to be referred to as “2 Esdras.”

Confused? Good!

The “Prayer of Manasseh” was included in an Appendix of only some copies of the Septuagint. Jerome therefore also restricted it to the Appendix of the Vulgate.

He “apocryphaed” it!!!

The Magisterium followed suit, excluding the Prayer of Manasseh.

Just because a book is excluded from the Canon does not definitively determine that it is not inspired.

The inspired Bible itself cites several books as its sources. See Joshua 10:13 and 2 Samuel 1:18’s references to the Book of Jashar.

Were the cited non-Bible passages inspired? Interesting question.

Several other sourcebooks are cited by the inspired Bible.

Additionally, in the 300s, Constantine’s friend and counsellor, Bishop Eusebius, located a letter from Jesus, Himself in some public records.

It appears to be quite genuine.

Assuming that it is genuine, is it inspired?

How could it not be?