S
Strategery
Guest
Congratulations and Praise the Lord! If you’re ever interested in posting some of your testimony, I’d love to read it.You might be surprised…I am converting this spring
- Status
N
NotWorthy
Guest
:tsktsk: You’re a bad, bad man, Mr. Pwrlftr!!!As long as you don’t celebrate at my brother’s place I guess it’s okay
Mental note: I wonder how many people are wondering what kind of private joke is going on between those two clowns…
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Yes, I have Mr. Michuta’s book on the subject. I was very disappointed with his treatment of the two Esdras. He didn’t even convince me of his reasoning, and I’m Catholic!
He also claims, contrary to other well-respected Catholic sources that the Catholic canon of Scripture is not closed. I don’t find this thesis tenable, given what the overwhelming response of Catholic theologians has been on this since Trent.
As for the two Esdras arguments put forth by Protestant apologists, I look form my previous posts on this.
P
Pwrlftr
Guest
Dave or NotWorthy,
You are going to have to explain this again.
We have Carthage and Hippo defining the OT canon, not infallibly, but defining it nonetheless. The OT canon was also defined (again not infallibly) at least one other time at Florence before Trent finally sealed the deal so to speak.
After Carthage and Hippo closed (I think I have the order here correct) the vulgate went out w/ Jeromes prefaces to the deutero’s which apparently stated that the deutero’s weren’t inspired scripture.
newadvent on the OT canon:
My questions are:
a.) Why did the church, after Carthage and Hippo defined the OT canon, allow the vulgate w/ Jerome’s prefaces to be sent out?
b.) Again, after Carthage and Hippo, why do we find folks still rejecting the deutero’s even on the eve of Trent (Cajetan and Ximenes)?
I guess I am not sure what the councils before Trent accomplished or meant to the folks in the church.
You are going to have to explain this again.
We have Carthage and Hippo defining the OT canon, not infallibly, but defining it nonetheless. The OT canon was also defined (again not infallibly) at least one other time at Florence before Trent finally sealed the deal so to speak.
After Carthage and Hippo closed (I think I have the order here correct) the vulgate went out w/ Jeromes prefaces to the deutero’s which apparently stated that the deutero’s weren’t inspired scripture.
newadvent on the OT canon:
We also see that on the eve of the Council of Trent that folks such as Cajetan and Ximenes rejected the canonocity of the deutero’s either in part or in whole.
My questions are:
a.) Why did the church, after Carthage and Hippo defined the OT canon, allow the vulgate w/ Jerome’s prefaces to be sent out?
b.) Again, after Carthage and Hippo, why do we find folks still rejecting the deutero’s even on the eve of Trent (Cajetan and Ximenes)?
I guess I am not sure what the councils before Trent accomplished or meant to the folks in the church.
P
Pwrlftr
Guest
Does that make us mysterious and therefore somehow more attractive? I’ll have to ask my wife if I am now more attractive…I’ll let you know what she says.:tsktsk: You’re a bad, bad man, Mr. Pwrlftr!!!
Mental note: I wonder how many people are wondering what kind of private joke is going on between those two clowns…
P
Pwrlftr
Guest
I spent 10 years trying to figure this out before deciding to convert. I guess I could try to put this whole journey down on paper…who knows
I will share this with you though…you can share your faith passionately and fully and still play nice. I suspect many non-Catholics are completely turned off by the rhetoric here at CAF.
P
Pwrlftr
Guest
Awwww…you say the nicest things.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Okay…here’s what I got on the “two Esdras” polemic put forth by Protestant authors…I won’t get into every detail as it is way too lenghty (and rather boring), but here’s the gist…
According to Protestant apologist William Webster, the canons of Hippo and Carthage under Augustine canonized different Esdra books than was canonized by Trent. He claims Augustine meant by “Esdras, two books” something different than Ezra and Nehemiah, which Jerome meant. His claim rests upon the premise that “Esdras, two books” never meant Ezra and Nehemiah until Jerome’s translation. Prior to that, Webster claims these two books were not Ezra and Nehemiah, but instead as “Apocryphal Esrdas” and a combined “Ezra-Nehemiah.”
He has NO evidence to support this theory. Which is why many other Protestant scholar more reputable and less polemical then he, disagree.
While not going into all of Webster’s claims, let just look at testing one, the key to his argument…
The Latins and Greeks prior to Jerome split the two books up. This is evident from Jerome’s Preface to Sameul & Kings (AD 391): “…the eighth, Ezra [note: one book] which itself is likewise divided amongst Greeks and Latins into two books” (St. Jerome, Preface to Samuel & Kings, NPNF, Series 2, Volume 6).
Thus, according to Jerome’s own preface, what he called the one book Ezra was divided into two books by both the Greeks and Latins. It was not him that made this division, but such division occurred well before his Vulgate. This is supported by the ***quote from Origen, who testifies that “our” first and second Esdras is that which the Hebrew call in one book, “Ezra.” “Esdras, first and second in one, Ezra” ***(Origen quoted by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History, VI. 25). It is undisputed that the Hebrews in Origen’s day combined Ezra and Nehemiah into one book which they called “Ezra.” Thus, Origen testifies that the Greek Church already separated this one book called by the Hebrews Ezra (Ezra-Nehemiah) into two books, which were called “Esdras, first and second.”
Jerome wanted to follow the Hebrew practice and keep both Ezra and Nehemiah as one book, “Ezra,” despite the prior practice of Greeks and Latins. There was no standard nomenclature in the 4th century, which makes Webster’s claim untenable. Yet, it is clear that Jerome’s desired nomenclature did not prevail.
According to Jerome’s Preface to the Book of Ezra, he specifically calls III and IV Esdras “apocryphal.” He stated,
According to Protestant apologist William Webster, the canons of Hippo and Carthage under Augustine canonized different Esdra books than was canonized by Trent. He claims Augustine meant by “Esdras, two books” something different than Ezra and Nehemiah, which Jerome meant. His claim rests upon the premise that “Esdras, two books” never meant Ezra and Nehemiah until Jerome’s translation. Prior to that, Webster claims these two books were not Ezra and Nehemiah, but instead as “Apocryphal Esrdas” and a combined “Ezra-Nehemiah.”
He has NO evidence to support this theory. Which is why many other Protestant scholar more reputable and less polemical then he, disagree.
While not going into all of Webster’s claims, let just look at testing one, the key to his argument…
- Webster has no evidence as to which naming convention Carthage followed. He assumes it, but there were many extant naming conventions used by both Latins and Greeks prior to Jerome. To assume one over the others is no proof.
- Contrary to Webster’s claim, Jerome was not the first to separte Ezra and Nehemiah into two books.
- Origen himself describes “Esdras, two books” as Ezra and Nehemiah. Therefore, even among the Greeks, this separation had been known way before Jerome’s version.
The Latins and Greeks prior to Jerome split the two books up. This is evident from Jerome’s Preface to Sameul & Kings (AD 391): “…the eighth, Ezra [note: one book] which itself is likewise divided amongst Greeks and Latins into two books” (St. Jerome, Preface to Samuel & Kings, NPNF, Series 2, Volume 6).
Thus, according to Jerome’s own preface, what he called the one book Ezra was divided into two books by both the Greeks and Latins. It was not him that made this division, but such division occurred well before his Vulgate. This is supported by the ***quote from Origen, who testifies that “our” first and second Esdras is that which the Hebrew call in one book, “Ezra.” “Esdras, first and second in one, Ezra” ***(Origen quoted by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History, VI. 25). It is undisputed that the Hebrews in Origen’s day combined Ezra and Nehemiah into one book which they called “Ezra.” Thus, Origen testifies that the Greek Church already separated this one book called by the Hebrews Ezra (Ezra-Nehemiah) into two books, which were called “Esdras, first and second.”
Jerome wanted to follow the Hebrew practice and keep both Ezra and Nehemiah as one book, “Ezra,” despite the prior practice of Greeks and Latins. There was no standard nomenclature in the 4th century, which makes Webster’s claim untenable. Yet, it is clear that Jerome’s desired nomenclature did not prevail.
According to Jerome’s Preface to the Book of Ezra, he specifically calls III and IV Esdras “apocryphal.” He stated,
Since Jerome’s nomenclature of one book Ezra (Ezra-Nehemiah) did not prevail within the 4th century canons, the extant codices of Jerome’s Vulgate dating as early as the 6th century reflect Ezra as “Liber Primus Esdrae” [First Book of Esdra] and Nehemiah as “Liber Nehemiae, Qui Et Esdrae Secundus Diciture” while the apocryphal texts are called “Liber Esdrae Terius,” and “Liber Esdrae Quartus.”
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
The Council of Florence listed the books as Ezra and Nehemiah, and Trent confirmed the same stating, “the first and second of Esdras, the latter of which is called Nehemias.”
Webster’s claim is contrary to other Protestant sources, such as
The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (2nd ed., edited by F.L. Cross & E.A. Livingstone, Oxford Univ. Press, 1983, p.232):"A council probably held at Rome in 382 under St. Damasus gave a complete list of the canonical books of both the Old Testament and the New Testament (also known as the ‘Gelasian Decree’ because it was reproduced by Gelasius in 495), which is identical with the list given at Trent."Protestant scholar Philip Schaff,“The council of Hippo in 393, and the third (according to another reckoning the sixth) council of Carthage in 397, under the influence of Augustine, who attended both, fixed the catholic canon of the Holy Scriptures, including the Apocrypha of the Old Testament… The New Testament canon is the same as ours. This decision of the transmarine church however, was subject to ratification; and the concurrence of the Roman see it received when Innocent I and Gelasius I a.d. 414) repeated the same index of biblical books. This canon remained undisturbed till the sixteenth century, and was sanctioned by the council of Trent at its fourth session.” (Schaff, Philip, History of the Christian Church, Vol. III, Ch 9)
Webster’s claim is contrary to other Protestant sources, such as
The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (2nd ed., edited by F.L. Cross & E.A. Livingstone, Oxford Univ. Press, 1983, p.232):"A council probably held at Rome in 382 under St. Damasus gave a complete list of the canonical books of both the Old Testament and the New Testament (also known as the ‘Gelasian Decree’ because it was reproduced by Gelasius in 495), which is identical with the list given at Trent."Protestant scholar Philip Schaff,“The council of Hippo in 393, and the third (according to another reckoning the sixth) council of Carthage in 397, under the influence of Augustine, who attended both, fixed the catholic canon of the Holy Scriptures, including the Apocrypha of the Old Testament… The New Testament canon is the same as ours. This decision of the transmarine church however, was subject to ratification; and the concurrence of the Roman see it received when Innocent I and Gelasius I a.d. 414) repeated the same index of biblical books. This canon remained undisturbed till the sixteenth century, and was sanctioned by the council of Trent at its fourth session.” (Schaff, Philip, History of the Christian Church, Vol. III, Ch 9)
G
guanophore
Guest
Sure! Sounds like grist for a new thread. I am only on this thread to refute the bald faced lies in the OP. Now that it has been done, it is sad to see that you have such a difficult time accepting it, and are trying to twist the topic so that you can still be “right”.
G
guanophore
Guest
Hi, Ginger
I guess my patience level is low, so I’m going to cut to the chase
It appears that you are not Catholic, and are posting to a Catholic forum. Is this correct?
It also appears that not only are you not Catholic, but you are … for lack of a better term, ‘hostile’ toward the Catholic church and Catholic teaching. Is this correct?
If this is the case, I am curious: why are you posting here? Are you trying to ‘wise up’ the Catholics? Or what?
Happy New Year!
Apryl has a good eye. She may be new, but she picked up quickly on Ginger2’s attitude from her posts. Let’s be honest. She did not come here with “questions” but a considerable degree of anti-Catholic hostility. The OP is an example, not of questions, but of anti-Catholic misinformation. I dont’ believe she got it from herself, but from other anti-Catholic sources, but she is responsible for spreading it.
I agree, though, most of us have learned a lot on this thread.
Well said!
P
patrick457
Guest
Well, I wouldn’t presume what is on Ginger2’s mind (I can’t read the hearts of men, after all), but if she did come here with some intent, then her plan had just backfired. But who knows? She may honestly not know and is just repeating anything that she had heard.
Even so, I’m sure that many of us have learned something on this thread, even Ginger2. On my part, this thread drove me to research things up a bit further (a plus of debate threads like this), so one can say that I did learn something, even if it be something small and unimportant.
I would disagree a bit about Apryl’s comments a bit though. Yes, CAF is a Catholic forum, but answering the questions and accusations non-Catholics (yes, even anti-Catholics!) and fellow Catholics have about the Church is the main reason why these forums is on the internet and why the organization which hosts these forums exists. This is why it is called Catholic Answers.
IMHO, CAF is not an exclusive Catholics-only club where fellow Catholics just pat each other on the back and that sort of stuff. After all, one hard fact of life is not all people are Catholic. If CAF had degraded into that sort of stuff, then woe betide it.
Sorry if my words come off a bit too harsh.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Here goes…
4th cent. - Synod of Rome, 382, Hippo 392, Carthage 397 all decreed the canon of the OT and NT, which included all the deuterocanonicals integrated in with the OT. This was authoritative and binding for the regions governed by these bishops, which included all the Latin or Western Church. It was not universal or irrevocable. Consequently, Catholics bound by these synods could disagree with these canons without sin of heresy, but could not disobey them.
15th cent. - Florence decreed the same books as the 4th cent. canons, teaching that they had God as their author. This was universal, authoritative, and binding. Yet, this too was not irrevocable. Consequently, prominent theologians such as Cardinal Cajetan disputed the inspired nature of many OT and NT texts between Florence and Trent, but was not charged with the crime of heresy by doing so.
16th cent. - Trent decreed the same books as the 4th cent. canons. This was universal, authoritative, binding and irrevocable. Catholics who obstinately deny or doubt this teaching commit the crime of heresy.
No, Jerome never stated they were not inspired. Saying that they are not canonical (which before AD 382 was true), is not the same as saying they are not inspired. Origen, for example, described the Shepherd of Hermas as “inspired” but never called it canonical.
Jerome noted the objections the Hebrews make against “us” because of the Scriptures accepted by the Churches of Christ. However, he treated them and called them “Holy Scripture,” frequently citing them in defense of Christian doctrine.
In fact, if you read the prefaces by Jerome, they aren’t as scandalous as has been implied. For instance, Jerome says in his preface to the Book of Tobit:
Is there anything here describing this book as not inspired?
Because they are outstanding prefaces. I recommend you stop reading what others say about them and read them for yourself. They provide outstanding history and scholarship, and relay what the Hebrews object to regarding what all of Christ’s Church calls Holy Scripture. Let the Pharisees be displeased, we are not subject to them!
Have you read what Cajetan wrote? He questions the inspiration of various texts of the OT and NT. He put forth academic reasons for his opinions. Since this was not yet de fide definita, such questioning, while rare and worthy of criticism, was not yet considered heretical.
Prior to the fourth century councils, the Gospel of Matthew, for example, was being used by Gnostics in heretical ways. Same with the Book of Revelation. Consequently, some Christians in good faith began to doubt the apostolicity of what the Church had always considered apostolic writings. Furthermore, in various places, like Corinth, the Letter of Pope Clement was being read as inspired Scripture, while other regions omitted the Book of Revelation. A authoritative canon was necessary to refute erroneous claims contrary to the Sacred Traditon of the Church.
However, our certainty and understanding of dogma develops over time, sometimes only after centuries of prayerful contemplation.
St. Augustine taught (De Civ. Dei, XVI, 2
:We ought not to rid ourselves of speculative theology, as it is through such contemplation that we grow in our understanding of the Faith. However, heresy cannot be tolerated among the faithful… “A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid” (Tit 3:10)
G
Ginger2
Guest
Instead of relying on commentaries you need compare the books from the Septuagint, the councils and the Vulgate.
Then you can whether they are they same or not.
I know this is more work, and the there are varying versions of the Septuagint, but it is the only way to settle whether or not the canons are the same.
Also, The council at Trent statements conclude the Bible Catholics have accepted for 1000 as the accurate canon of the Church is not the same as the one adopted at Trent.
In a way this is a lose lose situation for you. Even if the Trent and Hippo/Carthage canons matched exactly, which they don’t, you would have to concede the church used an incorrect canon for 1000 years. That destroys the claim the RC had the correct canon for 1500 years before ML.
G
Ginger2
Guest
I was asked to start this thread by NotWorthy.
C
Chris258
Guest
Just finished reading the whole thread. My eyes are tired, too… 
It was especially during the latter part that I learned more new historical tid-bits regarding the development of the Canon.
Dave,
Your explanations have been exceedingly helpful and informing. I am still wondering about something though; hopefully, I just missed a couple of sentences somewhere and it’ll be easy to answer.
So Hippo, Carthage and Rome all accepted Esdras, Two Books as canonical. What I’ve gleaned from your information is that we can’t conclude without a shadow of a doubt which nomenclature was used at this council, whether separating Ezra and Nehemiah or not.
The Ecumenical Council of Florence confirms (reading the site ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM) Esdras and Nehemiah as canonical. I am pretty well-convinced by your evidence of the nomenclature that this “Esdras” mentioned here is, content-wise, our Book of Ezra.
The Council of Trent again confirms The first book of Esdras and The second book of Esdras which is entitled Nehemias.
My question is regarding the Latin Vulgate. What exactly were the council fathers at Trent talking about when they mentioned the “Esdras” that was in the Vulgate but was not in the official lists in Carthage, Hippo, and Rome? If we go with the assumption that those councils were asserting, content-wise, our Book of Ezra and our Book of Nehemiah, the “Esdras” mentioned couldn’t possibly be our book of Ezra or Nehemiah but would have to be one of the other two apocryphal Esdras books. Was this “Esdras” one of the apocryphal “Books of Esdras” simply part of an appendix in the Latin Vulgate that did not suggest canonicity?
I have found a source: Concilium Tridentinum: Diariorum, Actorum, Epistularum, Tractatum but my Latin is not nearly expansive enough to read this well.
In any case, I am having trouble seeing what exactly was being debated between James White, Webster, and Michuta. What are White and Webster referring to when they say that Trent “passed over” something called “I Esdras”? Doesn’t the council explicitly say The First book of Esdras right there in the decree?
To help my confusion, if you are referring to what is, content-wise, our Book of Ezra [or our Book of Nehemiah], please refer to them as such. Thanks.
It was especially during the latter part that I learned more new historical tid-bits regarding the development of the Canon.Dave,
Your explanations have been exceedingly helpful and informing. I am still wondering about something though; hopefully, I just missed a couple of sentences somewhere and it’ll be easy to answer.
So Hippo, Carthage and Rome all accepted Esdras, Two Books as canonical. What I’ve gleaned from your information is that we can’t conclude without a shadow of a doubt which nomenclature was used at this council, whether separating Ezra and Nehemiah or not.
The Ecumenical Council of Florence confirms (reading the site ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM) Esdras and Nehemiah as canonical. I am pretty well-convinced by your evidence of the nomenclature that this “Esdras” mentioned here is, content-wise, our Book of Ezra.
The Council of Trent again confirms The first book of Esdras and The second book of Esdras which is entitled Nehemias.
My question is regarding the Latin Vulgate. What exactly were the council fathers at Trent talking about when they mentioned the “Esdras” that was in the Vulgate but was not in the official lists in Carthage, Hippo, and Rome? If we go with the assumption that those councils were asserting, content-wise, our Book of Ezra and our Book of Nehemiah, the “Esdras” mentioned couldn’t possibly be our book of Ezra or Nehemiah but would have to be one of the other two apocryphal Esdras books. Was this “Esdras” one of the apocryphal “Books of Esdras” simply part of an appendix in the Latin Vulgate that did not suggest canonicity?
I have found a source: Concilium Tridentinum: Diariorum, Actorum, Epistularum, Tractatum but my Latin is not nearly expansive enough to read this well.
In any case, I am having trouble seeing what exactly was being debated between James White, Webster, and Michuta. What are White and Webster referring to when they say that Trent “passed over” something called “I Esdras”? Doesn’t the council explicitly say The First book of Esdras right there in the decree?
To help my confusion, if you are referring to what is, content-wise, our Book of Ezra [or our Book of Nehemiah], please refer to them as such. Thanks.
P
Pwrlftr
Guest
Ginger,
I don’t understand what you are saying here.
a.) Your first statement references Trent twice. Did you mean to word yourself that way?
b.) I’m not sure why in your 2nd statement you say that if Trent, Carthage, and Hippo all matched the Church would have to concede it used the wrong canon.
I’ve been up since 3:30 so I may not be fully cognizant this morning but as I read your post I am not getting what you are saying.
P
Pwrlftr
Guest
You can go over to Gary Michuta’s website and take a look at what he says. www.handsonaplogetics.com and take a look through his article.Just finished reading the whole thread. My eyes are tired, too…
Dave,
Your explanations have been exceedingly helpful and informing. I am still wondering about something though; hopefully, I just missed a couple of sentences somewhere and it’ll be easy to answer.
So Hippo, Carthage and Rome all accepted Esdras, Two Books as canonical. What I’ve gleaned from your information is that it seems more likely than not that the content of these two books is our Book of Ezra and Book of Nehemiah. However, it is possible, though less likely, that one of these books is an Ezra-Nehemiah single volume (as per the Jewish nomenclature) and the other is an apocryphal book of Esdras.
The Ecumenical Council of Florence confirms (reading the site ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM) Esdras and Nehemiah as canonical. I am pretty well-convinced by your evidence of the nomenclature that this “Esdras” mentioned here is, content-wise, our Book of Ezra.
The Council of Trent again confirms The first book of Esdras and The second book of Esdras which is entitled Nehemias.
My question is regarding the Latin Vulgate. What exactly were the council fathers at Trent talking about when they mentioned the “Esdras” that was in the Vulgate but was not in the official lists in Carthage, Hippo, and Rome? If we go with the assumption that those councils were asserting, content-wise, our Book of Ezra and our Book of Nehemiah, the “Esdras” mentioned couldn’t possibly be our book of Ezra or Nehemiah but would have to be one of the other two apocryphal Esdras books. Was this “Esdras” one of the apocryphal “Books of Esdras” simply part of an appendix in the Latin Vulgate that did not suggest canonicity?
I have found a source: Concilium Tridentinum: Diariorum, Actorum, Epistularum, Tractatum but my Latin is not nearly expansive enough to read this well.
In any case, I am having trouble seeing what exactly was being debated between James White, Webster, and Michuta. What are White and Webster referring to when they say that Trent “passed over” something called “I Esdras”? Doesn’t the council explicitly say The First book of Esdras right there in the decree?
To help my confusion, if you are referring to what is, content-wise, our Book of Ezra [or our Book of Nehemiah], please refer to them as such. Thanks.
Several other Catholic apologists have different spins on this…including Dave. I need to spend a little more time on this before I come to a conclusion.
C
Chris258
Guest
I think Dave has shown that it is quite plausible that the two canons of Trent and Hippo/Carthage do match exactly. It’s all about what exactly is the content of this Esdras, Two Books, whether it’s Ezra and Nehemiah… or Ezra-Nehemiah and an Apocryphal Esdras.
I think she is asserting that what was promulgated in the Vulgate OT as canonical (and not relegated to an appendix of apocrypha) was ultimately different from Trent’s definition. I’m don’t think I’ve seen any documentation of this, though. Would like to see some if there is any.
I
irishpatrick
Guest
That is awesome news. Congratulations!You might be surprised…I am converting this spring
- Status