Canon of trent vs carthage

I was researching the supposed the diffrence bewteen the 2 canons but ive been stumped by this respone, any help

But in fact there was a later Latin translation of Esdras A, found in the Codex Colbertinus (for Ezra the Old Latin is more recent than the Vulgate). This text corresponds exactly to almost all Augustine’s Ezra citations. So we can be certain that this Old Latin ‘First Ezra’ was considered to be canonical (by Augustine at least). Secondly, as Pierre-Maurice Bogaert has confirmed, the Vercelli manuscript of the Old Latin text provides both First Ezra (corresponding to Codex Colbertinus) and Second Ezra (translating Ezra/Nehemiah Esdras B in full). So we can also be certain that Augustine made very little use of Old Latin ‘Second Ezra’, and in particular never cites the ‘Ezra’ sections from Old Latin ‘Second Ezra’. Thomas Denter has confirmed the same for every other Latin Father; Old Latin Ezra/Nehemiah was only ever used as a supplement to ‘First Ezra’, for those parts not found in what was considered the canonical text.

I can see that you have misled yourself in respect of both Jerome and Origen. Jerome does indeed say that the Septuagint has two Ezra books ‘derived from one’ in the Hebrew. But he is explicit that this derivation is that of ‘variant translations’; the two books of Ezra in the Septuagint are, he says, different versions of the same Hebrew original. So Jerome cannot be referring here to what we now call the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah; as they do not translate the same underlying Hebrew text. Jerome’s two books of Ezra must be the same as Augustine’s – that is Ezra A and Ezra B of the Septuagint. The same equally is true of Origen. As Gallagher and Meade point out, almost all Origen’s ‘Ezra’ citations are from Septuagint Ezra A. So one of Origen’s ‘two derived from one’ must be Ezra A. Which in turn means that the two cannot be identified with supposed ancient ‘Ezra’ and ‘Nehemiah’ text. In fact there is no surviving material or textual evidence anywhere for modern Ezra and Nehemiah being separated before the medieval period (either in Greek or Latin). All the patristic texts you cite are compatible with the ancient two books of Ezra corresponding to Old Latin First Ezra and Second Ezra from the Vercelli bible. Which is why you will only find one book of Ezra-Nehemiah (entitled ‘Ezra’) in the current (Stuttgart) scholarly edition of the Vulgate – with the full imprimatur of the Catholic Church.

Who is “you” here? Who are you addressing?

1 Like

The 2nd paragraph is still him speaking, i was reading a shamless popery article of the canon
https://shamelesspopery.com/did-the-council-of-carthage-have-one-book-too-many/
Scroll near the bottom not hard to find

TH, the original author of your quote, seems to be repeating the understanding in the Wikipedia article on Esdras. I find the chart there very helpful, but I would not stake my life on my understanding of TH or Wikipedia.

So what is your question. If Carthage says there were 2 books of Ezra, they probably meant Esdras 1 and Esdras 2. (The A and B in Greek are 1 and 2 in their number system=their alphabet.)

St Jerome rejected Ezra 1, so the Catholic Church has followed that, mostly. I think he talked about splitting it into 2 books for some reason.

Later, Ezra 2 (which was just called Ezra) was split into two books, Ezra and Nehemiah, which were sometimes referred to as Ezra 1 and 2. Trent identified these as canonical, which is different from what Carthage identified as Ezra 1 and 2.

Does that help? I am not really sure what is stumping you, because there is a lot to be confused about in these naming conventions.

1 Like

The Douay-Rheims (DRBO) and Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition 2nd (RSV-2CE) Bibles differ in some places by numbering, as well as the book title names.

DRBO RSV-2CE
1 Esdras Ezra
2 Esdras Nehemiah

You can find other book title name differences in the Old Testament on this website http://www.drbo.org/

1 Like

Wouldnt that be inconstient for the church to give us a flawed canon for 1500s

The fact that jerome said " No one ought to be bothered by the face esdras consists of only one book, nor ought anyone take delight in the dreams found in the apocryphal third and fourth books. Proves when the canon metions 1 and 2 esdras its talking about ezea and nehemiah since why would he say that if the authortative canon only had one book and not two aswell

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.