What's the deal with Esdras?

[Prodigal1984]

I read conflicting things as to the history of the Esdras books.
Catholics accept as scripture Ezra and Nehemiah ( 1 and 2 Esdras in Vulgate and Douay Rheims)
However two other books commonly known as 1 and 2 Esdras in modern English Bibles ( 3 and 4 Esdras in Vulgate appendix and Douay Rheims).
I have read that it is possible 1 Esdras( 3 Esdras in Vulgate) may be a book which should actually be in the Bible. The argument is that, this book is quite possibly older than Ezra-Nehemiah, and that Ezra-Nehemiah was an extension of this book with minor changes. In fact this book only has unique material in chapters 3-5. The book is called Esdras A in eastern Christianity whereas Ezra-Nehmiah is called Esdras B. This book was cited more by early Church Fathers than the canonical Ezra-Nehemiah.
The interesting argument is that some claim when Jerome translated the Vulgate, Ezra-Nehemiah was one combined book as it was in the old Latin Bible. Thus when the earliest Councils named two books of Esdras, what they meant was Ezra-Nehemiah as one book, and then Vulgate 3 Esdras as the other. It wasn’t until the middle ages that the Ezra-Nehemiah book was split into two books. However later Councils may not even have realized it.
It is a legitimate question regarding this. Does it matter all to much? Who knows, but it is possible there is a book missing that early Councils did consider canon.

Esdras - Wikipedia

 

[BartholomewB]

The interesting argument is that some claim when Jerome translated the Vulgate, Ezra-Nehemiah was one combined book as it was in the old Latin Bible. Thus when the earliest Councils named two books of Esdras, what they meant was Ezra-Nehemiah as one book, and then Vulgate 3 Esdras as the other.

“Some claim” – these are the words that call for amplification. Who is making this claim, and based on what evidence? And a highly important detail: Do they claim to have certain knowledge of this, or are they just saying it’s the most probable hypothesis among several possibilities?

 

[JohnR77]

two books of Esdras, what they meant was Ezra-Nehemiah as one book, and then Vulgate 3 Esdras as the other. It wasn’t until the middle ages that the Ezra-Nehemiah book was split into two books.

I do not believe you have any evidence for this .
and please give a year or approximation.
Middle Ages covers a wide time period

 

[BartholomewB]

I do not believe you have any evidence for this .
and please give a year or approximation.
Middle Ages covers a wide time period

Here’s what Wikipedia says:
Jerome himself rejected the duplication in his Vulgate translation of the Bible into Latin from the Hebrew; and consequently all early Vulgate manuscripts present Ezra-Nehemiah as a single book,[3] as too does the 8th century commentary of Bede, and in the 9th century bibles of Alcuin and Theodulf of Orleans. However, from the 9th century onwards, Latin bibles are found that for the first time separate the Ezra and Nehemiah sections of Ezra–Nehemiah as two distinct books; and this becomes standard in the Paris Bibles of the 13th century. It was not until 1516/17, in the first printed Rabbinic Bible of Daniel Bomberg that the separation was introduced generally in Hebrew Bibles.[4]

Ezra–Nehemiah - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[JohnR77]

However, from the 9th century onwards, Latin bibles are found that for the first time separate the Ezra and Nehemiah sections of Ezra–Nehemiah as two distinct books; and this becomes standard

And so how many extant bibles before the 9th century are we talking about? Any more bibles besides the ones already mentioned ?

Specifically which ones ?

Thanks,
John

 

[Prodigal1984]

This really isn’t that far fetched honestly.
The eastern churches have two books of Esdras; A Esdras is 1 Esdras( Vulgate 3 Esdras), and B Esdras is Ezra-Nehemiah as one book. ( Some Slavonic Orthodox churches also include 2 Esdras(4 Esdras Vulgate) but this is not uniform. Since Jerome translated the Hebrew and Greek, and Ezra-Nehemiah was one book in the Septuagint AND the Hebrew Bible at the time, this would make complete sense. Actually it is logical.

I’m actually surprised the Church has never really confronted this. At the Council of Trent, the Bishops voting decided to quietly pass over the additional Esdras and Maccabees books. There was no condemnation. Theoretically they said they don’t know and it could be resolved in the future. This is why, after the Council of Trent, Pope Clement Vlll placed 1(3) Esdras, 2(4) Esdras, and the Prayer of Manasseh in the appendix. They had been in the Vulgate for centuries just in the Old Testament. The Gutenberg Bible has them in the Old Testament without distinction of status. It is why they became also part of the Protestant Apocrypha with the rest of the Catholic Deuterocanonical Books. As for 3 and 4 Maccabees, they were known in the west but were generally more accepted and uniform in the east. I believe the Paris Bible was the first to include 3 Maccabees in the west.

 

[Prodigal1984]

For example in the pre Challoner Douay Rheims Bible, in the section on canonical books, Cardinal Allen says:
True it is that some of these books … were sometimes doubted of by some Catholics, and called Apocrypha, in that sense as the word properly signifieth hidden, or not apparent. So St. Jerome (in his prologue before the Latin Bible) calleth divers books Apocryphal, being not so evident, whether they were Divine Scripture, because they were not in the Jews’ Canon, nor at first in the Church’s Canon, but were never rejected as false or erroneous. In which sense the Prayers of Manasses, the third book of Esdras, and the third of Machabees are yet called Apocryphal. As for the fourth of Esdras, and the fourth of Machabees there is more doubt."

 

[BartholomewB]

And so how many extant bibles before the 9th century are we talking about? Any more bibles besides the ones already mentioned ?

You are asking how many pre-ninth century codices have Ezra-Nehemiah as a single book. I don’t know the number, but the short answer is all of them, from what Wikipedia is saying here, and also (from memory) from what I have read in other sources.

 

[JohnR77]

You are asking how many pre-ninth century codices have Ezra-Nehemiah as a single book. I don’t know the number, but the short answer is all of them, from what Wikipedia is saying here, and also (from memory) from what I have read in other sources.

Thanks for responding. But you have been wrongly informed. But that really wasn’t my question. My question was how many extant Bibles do we have prior to 800 AD ?

 

[Prodigal1984]

Quite a good number.

Biblical manuscript - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[BartholomewB]

The number of extant Biblical manuscripts is very large, I believe. The number of Greek NT manuscripts, for example, is over 5,700, according to the Center for New Testament Restoration, located in Lafayette, Indiana (link below). I don’t know what the figure would be for the OT manuscripts, if you add together all the scrolls and codices in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. Most of them, however, give only a small part of the Bible, often not as much as a single whole book. How many of them include Ezra-Nehemiah, either partly or in full, I have no idea. I don’t even know whether that kind of information is available online.

http://greekcntr.org/downloads/project.pdf

 

[Dovekin]

BartholomewB:

You are asking how many pre-ninth century codices have Ezra-Nehemiah as a single book. I don’t know the number, but the short answer is all of them, from what Wikipedia is saying here, and also (from memory) from what I have read in other sources.

Thanks for responding. But you have been wrongly informed. But that really wasn’t my question. My question was how many extant Bibles do we have prior to 800 AD ?

Do you know of a pre-ninth century ms that has Ezra and Nehemaiah as separate books? That ia what it sounds like here, that you have knowledge you are not sharing.

If I have misread you, never mind.

 

[BartholomewB]

Who, me? No, I have no such knowledge. On the contrary, every source I’ve ever seen says the opposite, that the split into separate books was a late development. The Wikipedia article I linked to earlier says it was in the ninth century.

 

[Dovekin]

Oops.

john said you were wrongly informed, which I take as meaning he knows about a pre-ninth century ms that separates Ezra and Nehemiah. You pretty clearly stated there are none.

 

[JohnR77]

The number of extant Biblical manuscripts is very large,

Thanks for responding.

But again not what I was asking. It is obvious to all of us that 1 single manuscript does not tell us if that book belongs in The Bible nor does it give us any clue as to the Canon of The Bible. My question, forgive me for not being more clear, was how many complete Bibles do we have prior to 800 AD ?

 

[BartholomewB]

My question, forgive me for not being more clear, was how many complete Bibles do we have prior to 800 AD ?

I have no idea, as I said in my earlier post. I even added:

I don’t even know whether that kind of information is available online.

Perhaps if you were to contact those people in Lafayette, Indiana, they might be able to point you in the right direction. That’s all I can suggest.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Tagging. Will respond later.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Gary Michuta debated James White in a debate about whether the so-called Deuterocanon belonged in the OT. Dr. White addressed the issue of 1/3 Esdras being different from Ezra-Nehemiah, and how the Council of Trent dealt with not including the “additions of Esdras” in the OT canon, despite them being in the fourth & fifth century councils of Rome, Hippo, & Carthage. I believe it was during a cross-examination, at which time Mr. Michuta said something to the effect of Trent “passing over” them.

The Great Debate 9: Gary Michuta vs James White

 

[po18guy]

I beleive that if we all spent more time reading the rule, and not the exception which proves that rule, we would be far better off.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

I beleive that if we all spent more time reading the rule , and not the exception which proves that rule, we would be far better off.

Couldn’t agree more! If we did that, most of our Bibles would be a lot “smaller.”