What's the deal with Esdras?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Prodigal1984
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well yah, and people say yah but it is basically just a different telling of the events of Ezra and Nehemiah and only two chapters have unique material. It is originally a Greek work. It is called by some Greek Esdras. It is accepted as canon in the east. The 2- 4 book of Esdras is sometimes called Latin Esdras( even though it is an apocalypse and is a beautiful read at that, no wonder Clement Xlll left it in the Vulgate as well.) But saying 1-3 Esdras is just a different telling of the same story and doesn’t belong is like saying the books of Chronicles is the same as Samuel-Kings and just a different retelling. That and the 1-3 Esdras is probably older than Ezra-Nehemiah. Josephus and most early Fathers cited it and not the canonical work in the Church.
 
Legitimate a question as it is, of course the Church has the final say, even while some of the Fathers disagreed.
It seems St. Augustine considered it Scripture (he refers to that unique material in chh 3-5) while St. Jerome did not. It’s odd though, since we follow the Jews on this point, having just Ezra-Nehemiah, yet St. Augustine does not mention this, while he does mention that the Church but not the Jews accept Maccabees as canonical. Many know there are also Books St. Jerome believed were not canonical which in fact are, and he accepted this when the Church declared it. But St. Jerome’s letter linked above shows that he was aware that Ezra-Nehemiah are sometimes treated and one and sometimes as two Books; and it would seem like quite a thing to think the Church would simply not notice something of such importance.
No one ought to be bothered by the fact that my edition consists of only one book, nor ought anyone take delight in the dreams found in the apocryphal third and fourth books. For among the Hebrews the texts of Ezra and Nehemiah comprise a single book, and those texts which are not used by them and are not concerned with the twenty-four elders ought to be rejected outright.
Click to expand...
So it certainly isn’t true that Ezra and Nehemiah were never treated as two Books until the 9th century. Perhaps it was often treated as one between the declaration of the canon and the 9th century. The idea the Church would have declared 3(1) Esdras as Scripture while not being noticed by her members seems extremely unlikely and would require some serious evidence, but if the Church clarifies that it is canonical, I can’t say I wouldn’t welcome having more Scripture! But I don’t think it is so.

In any case, 3(1) Esdras 3-5 is a Jewish literary gem much worth reading.

4 Esdras is just–I don’t know what to think of it!
 
RaisedCatholic said:
OT. Dr. White addressed the issue of 1/3 Esdras being different from Ezra-Nehemiah, and how 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
Click to expand...
I seriously doubt Gary would have endorsed your claim here. But even if he did it’s still wrong.

When I asked how many early bibles there were I was not attempting to acquire information. I was pointing to what I considered an obvious fact that people need to consider. That fact is that a slight aberration in such a small sampling is not Statistically significant or all that meaningful by itself.
Maybe I should have asked if you know anything about Statistics.

( We only have a small handful of bibles from this time period.)
 
Last edited:
NJada said:
4 Esdras is just–I don’t know what to think of it!
Click to expand...
I love it. I’ve actually read it numerous times. It reminds me of Ezekiel, Isaiah, Revelation, and also Chapters 7 and 12 of Daniel.
It was probably written in the first century if you believe scholars( which we can’t always and they are wrong and assuming most times, for example they also say Wisdom was written in the first century), but it is Jewish in origin and the messianic prophesies are amazing. Also how at the end Ezra is told to write copies of the scripture and release the public ones but to store up the ones which are to complex for the public to read and only the wise can, is quite interesting.

Even though the Church doesn’t consider it scripture, it is a gem of literature. Why it was preserved in the Vulgate. And also is used in liturgy. That prayer Christians use, eternal rest grant unto them oh Lord and let perpetual light shine upon them, comes from chapter 2, verse 34-35.
 
Last edited:
JohnR77 said:
When I asked how many early bibles there were I was not attempting to acquire information.
Click to expand...
Do you mean you already know? In that case, please share your information with us.
 
Last edited:
JohnR77 said:
That fact is that a slight aberration in such a small sampling is not Statistically significant or all that meaningful by itself.
Click to expand...
Since all Scripture is God-breathed, wouldn’t even a “small aberration” like additions to Ezra-Nehemiah that were in early versions of the Old Testament, but later ones be “significant” and “meaningful”?
 
JohnR77 said:
I seriously doubt Gary would have endorsed your claim here. But even if he did it’s still wrong.
Click to expand...
All I can tell you is what Gary Michuta affirmed in the debate about the “additions” to Esdras which were in the Councils of Hippo & Carthage, which were affirmed by both Pope Innocent I & Pope Gelasius I, but not in later versions of the Bible. It begins around the 1:39:17 mark:

1:39:17 mark - additions to Esdras
 
Thank you for sending the Link.
I listened to it 4 times and I understand Gary M. to be saying that the additional works of Esdras were Not listed in the Counsels of Hippo and Carthage but were in the Vulgate. And that Trent reaffirmed all the books listed in the Counsels of Hippo and Carthage, but declined to specifically address if the additions of the extra Esdras books should be Added to the lists of those councils.

White’s position is those extra Esdras books were included at councils of 393 and 397.

I suppose it’s possible that these extra Esdras books were in later additions of the Vulgate but I will argue they were not in the original edition of Jerome’s work.

Thanks,
John
 
JohnR77 said:
I listened to it 4 times and I understand Gary M. to be saying that the additional works of Esdras were Not listed in the Counsels of Hippo and Carthage but were in the Vulgate.
Click to expand...
No problem, John. I will have to listen to it again, because it didn’t sound like Michuta denied the additions to Esdras were in the Hippo & Carthage lists. If anything, when White asked why Trent did not include them while they were in these fourth century councils, Michuta’s reply of “they passed over them” indicates he agreed they were in those earlier councils, but not in Trent. I will have to listen more closely. Regarding the Vulgate, Michuta did admit they in the Vulgate. Whether he meant Jerome’s Vulgate or a later edition, I will have to research more.

I really enjoyed the debate. Two very good & knowledgeable debaters on the subject of the OT canon.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top