Protestant claim: Council of Trent inconsistent with Canon

  • Thread starter Thread starter Prodigal1984
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
2 Esdras (apocalyptic, the numbering of the Esdras books seems to vary by context).
Yes, on the nomenclature of the books of Ezra.
The Hebrew name “Ezra” is transcribed as “Esdras” in the Greek versions of the Bible, and it was this latter form which then passed into the Latin versions. The canonical book of Ezra was designated by St Jerome as “Liber Esdrae,” and that of Nehemiah as “Liber Nehemiae, qui et Esdrae secundus – the book of Nehemiah, which is also called the second of Ezra.” The apocryphal books named above were therefore designated in Latin Bibles as Third and Fourth Esdras, and so they remained until the Reformation.
The early Protestant English Bibles changed a great many proper names, including those of some Biblical books, away from the traditional Latin versions found in the Vulgate, which is partly filtered though the Septuagint, to a more direct transcription of the Hebrew. Hence the prophet “Sophonias” became “Zephaniah” and “Nabuchodonosor” became “Nebuchadnezzar”; likewise, “Esdras” was changed to “Ezra.” The book of Nehemiah was no longer designated as “also called Second of Ezra.”
The editors of the King James Bible then made the extremely silly and confusing decision to use “Esdras”, the Greek version of “Ezra”, as the name of the two apocryphal books which had hitherto been known as Third and Fourth Esdras, while also renumbering them. Thus, the books known in the Vulgate as First to Fourth Esdras became “Ezra, Nehemiah, First Esdras and Second Esdras.” The matter is rendered more complex still by the fact that the Greek and Old Church Slavonic Bibles each have yet another different system for naming and numbering these books.
 
Last edited:
Not at all.
I’m just pointing out that it is not the case that the Catholic Church accepted all of the books in the Vulgate which is the common view by most.
I dont see a problem with this point. I have often said the the Vulgate is only [a] basis the canon.

Peace!!!
 
Was then the Council of Trent inconsistent?
Probably. The Vulgate was not a precise term, because most copies were made by hand and contained individual errors. The basic content was agreed on, but the details you are discussing varied sometimes. In 1561, Cardinal Seripando wrote:
this Council declared in other occasions that in reading, in preaching and in discuss- ing, no other translation than the Vulgate is to be used. It remained the undecided doubt “which is this Vulgate,” since anyone would be taken, it would be found [in it] some reading that now is not as it was cited by some Father under the title of Vulgate that they had in that time.
16th century textual criticism was the beginning of the modern discipline. It sought a text that could be printed, giving multiple copies of an agreed upon text. The Clementine Vulgate is the result, but that was not completely accurate. Modern textual criticism still thrives, since we do not have a completely accurate version of the Vulgate or the bible, because all versions contain errors of some type.
 
I don’t see anything about the books in question that were also in the Vulgate. Does noone but me ever ask why the early Protestants regarded them the same way as the rest of the deuterocanonical books? It seems like these days the Church pretends they don’t exist when they were included in the Vulgate for centuries. Right up until the Nova Vulgate in 1979 for that matter.
 
Last edited:
Does noone but me ever ask why the early Protestants regarded them the same way as the rest of the deuterocanonical books?
The Protestants are incorrect.

And I would say no one else here seems actually haunted by the fact. It seems to particularly bother you.
 
In regard to the deuterocanonical books, we normally say that the Council of Trent affirmed all of the books in the Vulgate following the Protestant Reformation as their leaders were questioning their authority as scripture.
… in regards to these three texts the Catholic Church did the same thing.
Was then the Council of Trent inconsistent?
The Douay 1609 has 1 Esdras and 2 Esdras

 
Last edited:
That is obviously not the books in question. Obviously I am talking about what is called 3 and 4 Esdras in the Vulgate and Douay Rheims Bible.
Those are 1 and 2 Esdras known as Ezra and Nehemiah in modern Bibles that you posted.
However the books I am talking about are in the 1609 DR as well. Please look above for an explanation on the differing of numbering of the books.

1610 A.D. Douay Old Testament, 1582 A.D. Rheims New Testament : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
Alright, I was going by this in the post “These are 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, and the Prayer of Manasseh.”
So you say 3 Esdras and 4 Esdras. They were never canonical for the Latin Catholic Church.

Apocrypha
Vulgate​
Douay​
King James​
Oratio Manassae Regis​
Prayer of Manesses​
Prayer of Manesses​
3 Esdrae​
3 Esdras​
1 Esdras​
4 Esdrae​
4 Esdras​
2 Esdras​
 
In regard to the deuterocanonical books, we normally say that the Council of Trent affirmed all of the books in the Vulgate following the Protestant Reformation as their leaders were questioning their authority as scripture.
Right.
Now, I agree with all of the arguments in regards to the deuterocanonical books. However something which Norman Geisler brought up in one of his books, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals:Agreements and Differences is that the Council of Trent was not consistent.
Not consistent with what? If you compare the list of books in the Council of Florence, an ecumenical Council and therefore, infallible, with that of the Council of Trent, they are identical.
Many of us will say the Protestants removed the deuterocanonical books from the Old Testament at the time, but the truth is the Catholic Church did as well.
Nope.
If you ever read a KJV w the Apocrypha you will notice there are 3 books which are not in our Bibles along with the deuterocanonical books which are. These are 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, and the Prayer of Manasseh.
  1. The Protestant Apocrypha are not identical with the Catholic Deuterocanonicals.
  2. When we say that Luther removed the Deuterocanonicals removed the 7 Deuterocanonicals from the Bible, we don’t mean that he took them out. We mean that he declared them, uninspired.
  3. The Council of Trent declared those 7 books, inspired.
The Council of Trent did not affirm these books which had also been present in the Vulgate for centuries and Pope Clement Vlll placed them in an appendix to the Vulgate following the Council in 1592 just for this reason.
The Council of Trent listed the Deuterocanonicals from the Vulgate that she considers inspired.
They were present in the Douay Rheims Bible appendix until 1752. Note in these versions they are called 3 and 4 Esdras.
The Esdras have a complicated history, you might want to look into it separately. If the Douay Rheims had different books than those in the Vulgate, that does not make the Council of Trent inconsistent. It makes the Douay Rheims, inconsistent with the Council of Trent. But, I suspect, neither you nor Geisler understand the complicated history behind each book of the Bible.
If this is why these three texts are included in the standard Protestant apocrypha, …
The only person who understands what he included in the Protestant Apocrypha is Luther. He put himself above Scripture and decided what he would accept and reject.
Was then the Council of Trent inconsistent?
Nope.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top