Need Help - Dispute in the OT


#1

I had originally posted this in ‘Sacred Scripture’, but someone suggested that I try ‘Ask an Apologist’ … but I was thinking this may be a better room.

Hippo and Carthage state that 1 Esdras and 2 Esdras are canonical. They are referring here to the Septuagint version of 1 and 2 Esdras. In this version 1 Esdras is the Apocryphal additions to Ezra while 2 Esdras is the Jewish verion of Ezra-Nehemiah from the Jewish canon.

Is this correct?

The Council of Trent however states that 1 Esdras is actually Ezra from the Jewish canon and 2 Esdras is Nehemiah from the Jewish canon. Trent omits the Septuagint version of 1 Esdras.

Is this correct?

Secondly, Hippo and Carthage state that Solomon wrote 5 books of the Old Testament when in actuality he wrote only 3.

Is this correct?


#2

[quote=Inquirer]I had originally posted this in ‘Sacred Scripture’, but someone suggested that I try ‘Ask an Apologist’ … but I was thinking this may be a better room.

Hippo and Carthage state that 1 Esdras and 2 Esdras are canonical. They are referring here to the Septuagint version of 1 and 2 Esdras. In this version 1 Esdras is the Apocryphal additions to Ezra while 2 Esdras is the Jewish verion of Ezra-Nehemiah from the Jewish canon.

Is this correct?

The Council of Trent however states that 1 Esdras is actually Ezra from the Jewish canon and 2 Esdras is Nehemiah from the Jewish canon. Trent omits the Septuagint version of 1 Esdras.

Is this correct?

Secondly, Hippo and Carthage state that Solomon wrote 5 books of the Old Testament when in actuality he wrote only 3.

Is this correct?
[/quote]

You must supply your sources before anyone will respond.


#3

Hippo and Carthage decreed the 27 NT book canon, throwing out many books and keeping others that made it into the NT.

So if you question the OT, then you must also question the NT. And if you do that you are questioning all of Christianity.


#4

Perhaps he is just seeking an answer. I ask many questions which may seem to be attacks when I am in fact simply trying to understand particular things better.


#5

It would be possible for me to research these questions, as I have the writings in question, but without specifc citations it would be difficult, since I must slog through all the (long and various) texts to try to find the relevant passages. Would the OP care to CITE the writings so that we who have them may locate and research the passages?

However, I wish to also ask the OP, *who gives a fig what Hippo or Carthage said? * (and these weren’t one council, but a series of many councils). Neither series of councils were ecumenical (they were regional only). They may have historic interest, but that’s the ONLY interest they have - they were NOT ecumenical snd they did NOT define doctrine. Carthage is sometimes given more weight because Papal representatives were present, and the Pope endorsed it, but it was NOT an ecumenical council in any sense of the word.

Any (perceived) contradiction between Hippo/Carthage and Trent (an Ecumenical Council) may be attributed to any number of explanations, including the distinct possibility that the regional councils simply got it wrong. Regional councils do not enjoy the charism of infallibility.


#6

I think I better give a background …

I’m thinking of being catholic, I’ve been looking into catholic teaching and have been defending it (i.e.my decision) at a forum.

One of the issues that arose was papal bulls and proclamations (papal infallibility), I stated that they are usually issued when disputes arise and are not inventions at the spur of the moment.

One of my examples was the proclamatiom at Trent of the canon of the bible. I showed that the books chosen were not due to knee jerk reactions from the reformation but that these books had already been identified in the 4th century in the councils of Rome in 382, Hippo in 393 and Carthage III in 397.

I thought that was a fairly good example to illustrate how and when infallible proclamations were made. However, the response I got are the questions you know see in my first post.

… and I need help …


#7

[quote=Inquirer]I had originally posted this in ‘Sacred Scripture’, but someone suggested that I try ‘Ask an Apologist’ … but I was thinking this may be a better room.

Hippo and Carthage state that 1 Esdras and 2 Esdras are canonical. They are referring here to the Septuagint version of 1 and 2 Esdras. In this version 1 Esdras is the Apocryphal additions to Ezra while 2 Esdras is the Jewish verion of Ezra-Nehemiah from the Jewish canon.

Is this correct?

The Council of Trent however states that 1 Esdras is actually Ezra from the Jewish canon and 2 Esdras is Nehemiah from the Jewish canon. Trent omits the Septuagint version of 1 Esdras.

Is this correct?

[/quote]

From what I’ve read, the Greek Septuagint contained Esdras A and Esdras B. Esdras A comprised the apocryphal works now called III Esdras and IV Esdras. Esdras B comprised what is now called I Esdras (Ezra) and II Esdras (Nehemiah).

Although early Christians as late as Origen considered Esdras B (Ezra-Nehemiah) as a single book (source), it seems by the time the Councils of Hippo and Carthage came around Christians had separated Esdras B into the two separate books we know today as I Esdras (Ezra) and II Esdras (Nehemiah). It is these two books, I Esdras (Ezra) and II Esdras (Nehemiah), that the early Councils of Hippo and Carthage and the later Council of Trent refer to as the two books of Esdras.

Secondly, Hippo and Carthage state that Solomon wrote 5 books of the Old Testament when in actuality he wrote only 3.

Is this correct?

The ancients were more generous with regards to authorship than we moderns. The five books traditionally attributed to Solomon or what we might call written by or inspired by Solomon include Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticle of Canticles (Song of Songs), Wisdom, and Ecclesiasticus (Sirach).


#8

Apocryphal writings ascribed to Ezra.

I Esdras:

The apocryphal Book of Ezra, or, better, the “Greek Ezra” (Esdræ Græcus), is called Εσδρας in the Greek Bible, where it precedes the canonical books of Ezra and Nehemiah, counted there as one book, Εσδρας β’. In the old Latin Bible it was I Esdras; but after Jerome, with his strong preference for the books preserved in Hebrew, had rejected it from the canon, it was usually counted as III Esdras: then either Ezra was I Esdras, and Nehemiah was II Esdras; or Ezra-Nehemiah was I Esdras, and ch. 1, 2 of the Apocalypse of Esdras was II Esdras. Sometimes, however, the Greek Ezra is called II Esdras: then Ezra-Nehemiah is I Esdras, and the Apocalypse is III Esdras; or, as in the Ethiopic Bible, the latter is I Esdras, and Ezra-Nehemiah follows as III Esdras or as III and IVEsdras. In the English Bible it is again entitled I Esdras; here the canonical book retained the Hebrew form of its name, that is, “Ezra,” whereas the two apocryphal books, ascribed to the same author, received the title in its Græco-Latin form—“Esdras.” In the ancient Latin version I Esdras has the subscription “De Templi Restitutione.” Two Latin translations were made: the “Vetus Latina” (Itala) and the “Vulgate.” In Syriac the book is found only in the Syro-Hexaplar of Paul, Bishop of Tella (616-617), not in the older Peshiṭta. There are also an Ethiopic and an Armenian version.

II Esdras:

One of the most interesting and the profoundest of all Jewish and Christian apocalypses is known in the Latin Bible as “Esdræ Quartus.” The number, which usually is a part of the name, depends upon the method of counting the canonical Ezra-Nehemiah and the Greek Ezra: the book is called “I Esdras” in the Ethiopic, “II Esdras” in late Latin manuscripts and in the English Bible, “III Esdras” in other Latin manuscripts. There is another division in Latin Bibles, separating II Esdras into three parts, each with a separate number, of which the main part is “Esdræ Quartus.” Greek Fathers quote it as Ἔσδρας Προφήτης or Αποκάλυψις Ἔαδρα. The most common modern name is “IV Esdras.” Only ch. iii.-xiv., the original apocalypse, will be discussed here. The original was written in Hebrew, and then translated into Greek, as has been proved by Wellhausen, Charles, and finally by Gunkel; but neither the Hebrew nor the Greek text is extant.

II Esdras is a characteristic example of the growth of apocalyptic literature: the misery of the present world leads to the seeking of compensation in the happiness of the future. But besides its historical value, this book is an unusually important monument of religious literature for all times.

Additions: Ch. i. and ii. of the Latin and English versions are of Christian origin (probably second century), and describe the rejection of the Jews in favor of the Christians. Ch. xv. and xvi., which predict wars and rebuke sinners at length, may be Jewish; they date from the middle or the second half of the third century.

The author of II Esdras, also called “the prophet Ezra,” in all probability, as shown by Wellhausen (“Skizzen und Vorarbeiten,” vi. 248 et seq.), had before him the Baruch Apocalypse, written under the impression of the destruction of the Temple by the Romans; …

For rest of the article to read contents of each book see,

jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=463&letter=E&search=Esdras


#9

hti.umich.edu/cgi/r/rsv/rsv-idx?type=DIV1&byte=3584099

hti.umich.edu/cgi/r/rsv/rsv-idx?type=DIV1&byte=3652195

wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/noncanon/apocrypha.htm

google.com/custom?domains=NewAdvent.org&q=Esdras&sa=Search+New+Advent&sitesearch=NewAdvent.org&client=pub-8168503353085287&forid=1&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=ISO-8859-1&safe=active&cof=GALT%3A%23008000%3BGL%3A1%3BDIV%3A%23336699%3BVLC%3A663399%3BAH%3Acenter%3BBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BLBGC%3A336699%3BALC%3A0000FF%3BLC%3A0000FF%3BT%3A000000%3BGFNT%3A0000FF%3BGIMP%3A0000FF%3BFORID%3A1%3B&hl=en


#10

I’d also suggest the very extensive articles over at www.newadvent.org dealing with the OT, NT, and Canon. They are quite good.


#11

Thanks to those who gave helpful links.

Daniel Marsh - what were those links for?!


#12

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.