Why do Catholic Church reject 4 Edras?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Daniel_Marsh
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Because it was written somewhere between 30BC and 100AD, maybe? That seems to be the general consensus.
 
If this is true (I have no idea if it is or not) then that would certainly explain it.

One of the criteria for deeming a book canonical is that the book had to be written prior to the end of the apostolic age. 30 B.C. seems a little unlikely to disqualify it, but 100 A.D would be a real problem from what I understand.

Anyone know when the book was written (or more importantly, when the early Church THOUGHT the book was written ?)
 
RobNY said:
I don’t know if we’ve ever officially excluded it. We just haven’t included it.

-Rob

(Perhaps mincing words, but there is a difference.)
Click to expand...
Okay you need to explain that one to me, because it is my understanding that the canon of Scripture is closed. The Canon of Scripture is considered a part of Sacred Tradition (I believe, and if I am wrong I am sure someone will correct me…gently I hope)…noone can change Sacred Tradition.
 
This must be a book outside the Christian canon. Any Orthodox who can answer for this person? I’m not aware of it.

A blessed Good Friday to you,

Peace,

Steven
 
I wonder what the orthodox have to say on this?

God turned my apple juice into wine today, but it took 30 years.

I started doing spring cleaning, I found a can of apple juice in a closet where it did not belong. So, I opened it, and put it in the ice box. Low and behold when I went to drink it, it was wine, so I poured it out. The date on the can was 1971.
 
I am Eastern Orthodox. Yes in the Russian Canon of scripture 4 esdras is in the Bible.
 
So, why is it in the orthodox bible and not in the catholic one?

:confused:
 
I answered before I looked, I have a Greek Septuagint, and I found 1,2,3&4 Machabees, not ezdras.
but it could be in some other canon. As to why? Who knows why different Churches use different Canons?
Why did the Protestants tear out the Deutero Canonical Books?
Because they didn’t want to have anything connected with the Catholic Church?🤷 :highprayer:
 
Daniel_Marsh said:
So, why is it in the orthodox bible and not in the catholic one?

:confused:
Click to expand...
I pulled out my CD with St. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate translation from his day. It shows 2 books of Esdras… don’t know what that means…interesting.
 
I think I saw 3 and 4 Ezdras in the NRSV Ecumenical edition.
I don’t have a copy,yet, but I hope to purchase one soon.
 
Perhaps this will help; the entire article is very long. I believe the books in question are in the Jewish bible.

Named in the order in which they stand in the current Hebrew text, these are: Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Canticle of Canticles, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Esdras, Nehemias, or II Esdras, Paralipomenon.

The most explicit definition of the Catholic Canon is that given by the Council of Trent, Session IV, 1546. For the Old Testament its catalogue reads as follows:
The five books of Moses (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy), Josue, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first and second of Esdras (which latter is called Nehemias), Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidic Psalter (in number one hundred and fifty Psalms), Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel, the twelve minor Prophets (Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacue, Sophonias, Aggeus, Zacharias, Malachias), two books of Machabees, the first and second.
The order of books copies that of the Council of Florence, 1442, and in its general plan is that of the Septuagint. The divergence of titles from those found in the Protestant versions is due to the fact that the official Latin Vulgate retained the forms of the Septuagint.
Catholic Encyclopedia
 
joshua_b said:
Okay you need to explain that one to me, because it is my understanding that the canon of Scripture is closed. The Canon of Scripture is considered a part of Sacred Tradition (I believe, and if I am wrong I am sure someone will correct me…gently I hope)…noone can change Sacred Tradition.
Click to expand...
I genuinely do not know if it has been, ‘closed.’ It has been definitively and solemly defined, at the Council of Trent. Looking at the Council, it says after listing the canon:
But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema
Click to expand...
It anathematized those who would exclude any of these books or their parts from Scripture. It didn’t pronounce what would happen if anyone declared that Scripture was wider than this list.

That’s not to say that I think these are part of Scripture. I have seen no indication from the Church that they are. I am receptive to whatever the Church says regarding them. However, I just think it is overreaching, based on what I know (and I may be wrong!), to say that the Church has definitively excluded them.

-Rob
 
obadiah said:
I think I saw 3 and 4 Ezdras in the NRSV Ecumenical edition.
I don’t have a copy,yet, but I hope to purchase one soon.
Click to expand...
I have the NRSV you are talking about. It is the New Oxford Study Bible. It has 1 & 2 Esdras in the Apocrypha (this would have been 3 & 4 Esdras in the Vulgate). 1 & 2 Esdras in the Vulgate are called Ezra and Nehemiah in the NRSV (and are canonical for Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants). Catholics do not recognize 1 & 2 Esdras in the NRSV (aka 3 & 4 Esdras in the Vulgate).
 
Thanks for clearing that up. In the original 1611 KJV 1st Ed. It has1&2 Esdras in the Apocrypha section, and I think the Church of England has the Apocrypha between the Old and New Testaments. The Books Ezra and Nehemiah are in the Old Testament.
What’s interesting, is the Septuagint has 3 & 4 Maccabees. Those are intriguing books.
 
obadiah said:
Thanks for clearing that up. In the original 1611 KJV 1st Ed. It has1&2 Esdras in the Apocrypha section, and I think the Church of England has the Apocrypha between the Old and New Testaments. The Books Ezra and Nehemiah are in the Old Testament.
What’s interesting, is the Septuagint has 3 & 4 Maccabees. Those are intriguing books.
Click to expand...
NRSV has the same Apocrypha as KJV, but they also have 3 & 4 Maccabees in the NRSV Apocrypha. Orthodox recognize 3 & 4 Maccabees but Catholics do not. The reason I bought that version of the NRSV is because I wanted a Bible with the books that the Orthodox recognize and the Catholic Church doesn’t. I am planning to buy the Orthodox Bible that is currently in the process of being published. It is supposed to be available next year. Currently only the New Testament is available. I will wait until the whole Bible is done before I purchase it.
 
I’ve been waiting for that translation to come out since forever. Fr. Peter Gilquist is a member of our parish, and I see him all the time. I think he is a managing editor or something. Fr. Peter told me that the publication has been delayed because one of the translators died last year.
It will have very extensive notes. Also it will be the NKJV, except where that translation differs from the Septuagint, ( which is A LOT), then the translation will be directly from the LXX.
Hopefully it will be out by Pascha 2008. But you never know.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top