Why does Leo XIII cite non-canonical 3 Esdras?

  • Thread starter Thread starter japhy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

japhy

Guest
In his encyclical of 1893 on the topic of the study of Scripture, Providentissimus Deus, Pope Leo XIII quotes a non-canonical source, an apocryphal work called “3 Esdras”:
  1. … There have been objections without number perseveringly directed against the Scripture for many a long year, which have been proved to be futile and are now never heard of; and not unfrequently interpretations have been placed on certain passages of Scripture (not belonging to the rule of faith or morals) which have been rectified by more careful investigations. As time goes on, mistaken views die and disappear; but “truth remaineth and groweth stronger for ever and ever.” (3 Esdras 4:38)
It seems peculiar to me that, in an encyclical on Scripture, the Holy Father would include as a resource an apocryphal text. Nevermind that 3 Esdras seems to be primarily a conglomeration of 2 Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah. Wasn’t there a better source for such a quote?
 
Sources other than Scripture can be cited in encyclicals. 3 Esdras would still be considered a religious text even tho it wasn’t part of the canon of the OT. Pope Leo no doubt cited it because it was a passage he was familiar with and it expressed what he wanted to say.

I like the quote.

Nita
 
And even Luther, who thought of some writings of the OT as “apocrypha”, thought them to be well worth reading 😉
 
And even Luther, who thought of some writings of the OT as “apocrypha”, thought them to be well worth reading 😉
The Catholic Church as well has no problems using non-inspired texts to reinforce religious truth.

Take, for example, the “Requiem Aeternam” introit for the Mass for the Dead. That’s taken from 2 [4] Esdras 2:34ff. The names of Sts. Joachim and Ann are from the Protoevangelium of James.
 
I know non-canonical Scripture can be quoted, I just found it odd that it was quoted in a writing specifically about studying Holy (and I expect canonical) Scripture.

There’s nothing “wrong” with it, per se, it just seems weird to me.
 
Japhy,

If you treat 3 Esdras as another inspirational book worth reading but not inspired then his quote may not seem so odd. Wouldn’t it be the same if he quoted approvingly of another Pope or a well known scholar like Cardinal Newman.

Him quoting it isn’t meant to establish it’s canonicity or lessen the importance of all other approved Scriptures.

ChadS
 
If you treat 3 Esdras as another inspirational book worth reading but not inspired then his quote may not seem so odd. Wouldn’t it be the same if he quoted approvingly of another Pope or a well known scholar like Cardinal Newman.
Yes, I understand. I’m probably making a big deal out of nothing.
Him quoting it isn’t meant to establish it’s canonicity or lessen the importance of all other approved Scriptures.
I’m just imagining a Protestant pointing at this document and insisting the Pope is “endorsing” apocryphal literature as proper “Scripture”.
 
I’ve seen Cicero, Plato, Aristotle, and others cited in papal encyclicals, why not 3 Esdras? 🤷
 
Another thought just came to me:

Is 3 Esdras in any Eastern canons? Pope Leo XIII was very pastorally concerned with the Eastern churches and re-union with the Orthodox. He proclaimed three Eastern Doctors of the Church and encouraged the de-Latinization of Eastern liturgies and sent a letter to the Orthodox explaining that for re-unification they would not have to change anything except acknowledge the truth of the papacy.
 
Even though 3 Esdras does not fit into the area of Sacred Scripture (which has been dogmatically defined as a closed canon in the Council of Trent, so there’s no use arguing about it), apocryphal books do fit quite comfortably in Sacred Tradition, provided they are not heretical in nature. So books such as the ones within the Vulgate but have since been determined not to be Sacred Scripture (such books are 3&4 Esdras, Prayer of Manasses, 3 Maccabees, and Psalm 151) are relevant in Sacred Tradition; there are also apocryphal books surrounding the New Testament, but since the great majority are in fact heretical by nature, these heretical books do not render themselves well within Sacred Tradition, notable exceptions being the Protoevangelium of James (from where we get the traditions of Mary’s parents, Jesus’ grandparents, who are Joachim and Anne; as well as an early Christian witness to several Marian dogmas such as the Immaculate Conception) and another exception being the Acts of Peter (from where we get the account of Peter’s Martyrdom [even though this Acts of Peter is gnostic and therefore heretical, it does align itself to tradition in this regard and thus is a witness to early Christian, albeit a heretical Christian, to traditions such as these]).

By the very fact that it’s in the Vulgate shows that the early Church dearly loved this text, and quoted from it often {even Jesus Himself seems to quote 4 Esdras, when he says: ‘[H]ow often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not?’ (Lk 13:34 RSV-CE), and 4 Esdras says: ‘I gathered you as a hen gathers her brood under her wings’ (4 Esdras 1:30 RSV). I’m quite sure that the theme of ‘the hen gathering her brood under her wings’ was a widely used Semitic idiom; this theme nevertheless appears nowhere else within Sacred Scripture.}
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top