Outline:
i. Prolegomena (the “Council” of Trent).
1. The Apocrypha were not Included in the Canon Prior to the “Council” of Trent.
A. Cardinal Ximenes’ Complutensian Polyglot Bible (1514-1517 A.D.).
C. Cardinal Cajetan (1469-1534 A.D.).
D. Erasmus of Rotterdam (1466-1536 A.D.).
E. Other.
2. The Apocrypha Were not “Canonized” Until the “Council” of Trent.
G. Excursus: The Local Synods of Hippo/Carthage vs. the “Council” of Trent.
3. Endnotes.
i. Prolegomena (the “Council” of Trent). Return to Outline.
B. F. Westcott:
This fatal decree . . . was ratified by fifty-three prelates, among whom there was not one German, not one scholar distinguished for historical learning, not one who was fitted by special study for the examination of a subject in which the truth could only be determined by the voice of antiquity.
(Brooke Foss Westcott, The Bible in the Church: A Popular Account of the Collection and Reception of the Holy Scriptures in the Christian Churches: Third Edition, [London and Cambridge: Macmillan and Co., 1870], p. 257.)
1. The Apocrypha were not Included in the Canon Prior to the “Council” of Trent. Return to Outline.
The Catholic Encyclopedia:
In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity.
(George J. Reid, S.T.L., “Canon of the Holy Scriptures;” In: The Catholic Encyclopedia: An International Work of Reference on the Constitution, Doctrine, Discipline, and History of the Catholic Church: Vol. III, [New York: The Universal Knowledge Foundation, Inc., 1913], p. 273. Ecclesiastical approbation: Nihil Obstat, November 1, 1908: Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur: John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.)
Cf. Gregory I [Gregory the Great], Bishop of Rome [Pope] (c. 540-604 A.D.):
With reference to which particular we are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not Canonical [licet non canonicis], yet brought out for the edification of the Church, we bring forward testimony. Thus Eleazar in the battle smote and brought down an elephant, but fell under the very beast that he killed. [1 Macc. 6.46]
(Gregory the Great, Morals on the Book of Job, 19.34 [on Job 29:14]; PL, 76:119; trans. Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church: Morals on the Book of Job by S. Gregory the Great: In Three Volumes: Vol. II. Parts III. and IV, [Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1845], p. 424.) [1.]
A. Cardinal Ximenes’ Complutensian Polyglot Bible (1514-1517 A.D.). Return to Outline.
The Catholic Encyclopedia:
The first Bible which may be considered a Polyglot is that edited at Alcalá (in Latin Complutum, hence the name Complutensian Bible), Spain, in 1502-17, under the supervision and at the expense of Cardinal Ximenes, by scholars of the university founded in that city by the same great Cardinal. It was published in 1520, with the sanction of Leo X. Ximenes wished, he writes, “to revive the languishing study of the Sacred Scriptures”; and to achieve this object he undertook to furnish students with accurate printed texts of the Old Testament in the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin languages, and of the New Testament in the Greek and Latin. His Bible contains also the Chaldaic Targum of the Pentateuch and an interlinear Latin translation of the Greek Old Testament. The work is in six large volumes, the last of which is made up of a Hebrew and Chaldaic dictionary, a Hebrew grammar, and Greek dictionary. It is said that only six hundred copies were issued; but they found their way into the principal libraries of Europe and had considerable influence on subsequent editions of the Bible.
(Wendell. S. Reilly, S.S., S.T.D., D.S.S., “Polyglot Bibles;” In: The Catholic Encyclopedia: An International Work of Reference on the Constitution, Doctrine, Discipline, and History of the Catholic Church: Volume XII, [New York: The Universal Knowledge Foundation, Inc., 1913], p. 222. Ecclesiastical approbation: Nihil Obstat, June 1, 1911: Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur: John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.)
Note: Published with the sanction of Pope Leo X.
Cardinal Ximenes’ Complutensian Polyglot Bible (1514-1517 A.D.):
The books which are without the Canon, which the Church receives rather for the edification of the people than for the establishment of doctrine, are given only in Greek, but with a double translation [At vero libri extra canone: quos Ecclesia pontius ad ædificationem populi: [quam] ad autoritatem ecclesiasticorum dogmatum confirmandam recipit: Græcam tm habent scripturam: sed cum duplici latina interpretatione].
(Francisco Ximenes de Cisneros, Complutensian Polyglot Bible: Vol. I, [1514-1517], Prologue; trans. Brooke Foss Westcott, The Bible in the Church: A Popular Account of the Collection and Reception of the Holy Scriptures in the Christian Churches: Third Edition, [London and Cambridge: Macmillan and Co., 1870], p. 249.) [2.]
Cf. B. F. Westcott:
At the dawn of the Reformation the great Romanist scholars remained faithful to the judgment of the Canon which Jerome had followed in his translation. And Cardinal Ximenes in the preface to his magnificent Polyglott (Biblia Complutensia)—the lasting monument of the University which he founded at Complutum or Alcala, and the great glory of the Spanish press—separates the Apocrypha from the Canonical books. The books, he writes, which are without the Canon, which the Church receives rather for the edification of the people than for the establishment of doctrine, are given only in Greek, but with a double translation.
(Brooke Foss Westcott, The Bible in the Church: A Popular Account of the Collection and Reception of the Holy Scriptures in the Christian Churches: Third Edition, [London and Cambridge: Macmillan and Co., 1870], p. 249.)
B. The Glossa Ordinaria (1498 Edition). Return to Outline.
Note: The Prologue is the same in all the preceding editions of the Glossa Ordinaria.
The Catholic Encyclopedia:
As Scriptural commentaries there are two celebrated glosses on the Vulgate. The former is the “Glossa Ordinaria”, thus called from its common use during the Middle Ages. Its author, the German Walafrid Strabo (died 849), had some knowledge of Greek and made extracts chiefly from the Latin Fathers and from the writings of his master, Rabanus Maurus, for the purpose of illustrating the various senses—principally the literal sense—of all the books of Holy Writ. This gloss is quoted as a high authority by St. Thomas Aquinas, and it was known as “the tongue of Scripture”. Until the seventeenth century it remained the favourite commentary on the Bible; and it was only gradually superseded by more independent works of exegesis. The “Glossa Ordinaria” is found in vols. CXIII and CXIV of Migne, P.L.
(Francis E. Gigot, S.T.D., “Glosses;” In: The Catholic Encyclopedia: An International Work of Reference on the Constitution, Doctrine, Discipline, and History of the Catholic Church: Volume VI, [New York: The Encyclopedia Press, Inc., 1913], p. 588. Ecclesiastical approbation: Nihil Obstat, September 1, 1909: Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur: John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.)
Cf. The New Catholic Encyclopedia:
So great was the influence of the Glossa ordinaria on biblical and philosophical studies in the Middle Ages that it was called “the tongue of Scripture” and “the bible of scholasticism.”
(C. O’C. Sloane, “Glosses, Biblical;” In: New Catholic Encyclopedia: Volume VI, [New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967], p. 516. Ecclesiastical approbation: Nihil Obstat: John P. Whalen, M.A., S.T.D. Censor Deputatus. Imprimatur: Patrick A. O’Boyle, D.D. Archbishop of Washington, August 5, 1966.)
Glossa Ordinaria (Prologue):
Here, then, we distinguish and number distinctly first the canonical books and then the non-canonical, among which we further distinguish between the certain and the doubtful.
The canonical books have been brought about through the dictation of the Holy Spirit. It is not known, however, at which time or by which authors the non-canonical or apocryphal books were produced. Since, nevertheless, they are very good and useful, and nothing is found in them which contradicts the canonical books, the church reads them and permits them to be read by the faithful for devotion and edification. Their authority, however, is not considered adequate for proving those things which come into doubt or contention, or for confirming the authority of ecclesiastical dogma, as blessed Jerome states in his prologue to Judith and to the books of Solomon.
(Biblia Cum Glosa Ordinaria et Expositione Lyre Litterali et Morali, [Basel: Petri & Froben, 1498], British Museum IB.37895, Vol. 1, On the canonical and non-canonical books of the Bible, [Translation by Dr. Michael Woodward]; In: William Webster, Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith: Volume II, [Battleground: Christian Resources, 2001], pp. 366-367, p. 399, fn. 720. Cf. PL, 113:19-20.) See also: christiantruth.com. [3.]
Cf. Glossa Ordinaria (Prologue):
These are the books that are not in the canon [non sunt in canone], which the church includes as good and useful books, but not canonical [non ut canonicos]. Among them are some of more, some of less authority. For Tobit, Judith, and the books of Maccabees, also the book of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, are strongly approved by all. ...Of less authority are Baruch and Third and Fourth Ezra.
(Biblia Cum Glosa Ordinaria et Expositione Lyre Litterali et Morali, [Basel: Petri & Froben, 1498], British Museum IB.37895, Vol. 1, On the canonical and non-canonical books of the Bible, [Translation by Dr. Michael Woodward]; In: William Webster, Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith: Volume II, [Battleground: Christian Resources, 2001], pp. 400-401, fn. 722. Cf. PL, 113:21, 22.) See also: christiantruth.com. [4.]
C. Cardinal Cajetan (1469-1534 A.D.). Return to Outline.
The Catholic Encyclopedia:
Cajetan has been described as small in bodily stature but gigantic in intellect. In all his varied and laborious offices he never omitted his daily study and writing, nor failed in the practices of the religious life. ...It has been significantly said of Cajetan that his positive teaching was regarded as a guide for others and his silence as an implicit censure. His rectitude, candour, and moderation were praised even by his enemies.
(John R. Volz, O.P., “Cajetan;” In: The Catholic Encyclopedia: An International Work of Reference on the Constitution, Doctrine, Discipline, and History of the Catholic Church: Volume III, [New York: The Universal Knowledge Foundation, Inc., 1913], pp. 146, 147. Ecclesiastical approbation: Nihil Obstat, November 1, 1908: Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur: John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.)
Cardinal Cajetan’s Commentary on All the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament:
Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St. Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecciesiasticus, as is plain from the Protogus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome [Nam ad Hieronymi limam reducenda sunt tam verba conciliorum quam doctorum]. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical [non sunt canonici], that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.
(Thomas de Vio Caietanus Cardinalis, In Omnes Authenticos Veteris Testamenti Historiales Libros Commentarii, [Parisiis: Apud Carolam Guillard, 1546], “Ester Commentarii,” Cap. X, pp. 481b-482a; trans. William Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture, [Cambridge: Printed at the University Press, 1849], p. 48.) [5.]
Cf. Michael O’Connor:
This principle leads Cajetan, on Jerome’s authority (and without detailed consideration of authorship), to exclude the following from the canon of the Old Testament: Judith, Tobit, six or seven chapters of Esther, the Books of Maccabees, Wisdom, and Ecclesiasticus (Sirach)... He persists, however, in urging that Jerome’s determination is the measure to which the teaching of the fathers and even the councils of the Church must be aligned. …Here, his evaluation of the authority of Jewish sources is clear. He has already argued that the aim of the translator must be to produce a text as close as possible to that of the Hebrews; likewise, on the issue of canonicity, he shares Jerome’s concern that the Church’s canon of the Old Testament should be no more extensive than that of the Hebrews. Furthermore, by following Jerome’s authority, says Cajetan, the Church is spared the reproach of the Hebrews, namely, of having added to the canon.
(Michael O’Connor, St. Andrew’s Studies in Reformation History: Cajetan’s Biblical Commentaries: Motive and Method, [Leiden: Brill, 2017], “Correcting the Latin Text,” pp. 149, 150, 150.)
Cf. Bruce Metzger:
…Cardinal Cajetan, Luther’s opponent at Augsburg in 1518, gave an unhesitating approval to the Hebrew canon in his Commentary on All the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament, which he dedicated in 1532 to Pope Clement VII.
(Bruce Metzger, An Introduction to the Apocrypha, [New York: Oxford University Press, 1957], p. 180.)
Note: Cardinal Cajetan was the papal legate who opposed Martin Luther at Augsburg.
D. Erasmus of Rotterdam (1466-1536 A.D.). Return to Outline.
The Catholic Encyclopedia:
…the most brilliant and most important leader of German humanism…
(Joseph Sauer, S.T.D., “Erasmus;” In: The Catholic Encyclopedia: An International Work of Reference on the Constitution, Doctrine, Discipline, and History of the Catholic Church: Volume V, [New York: The Encyclopedia Press, Inc., 1913], p. 510. Ecclesiastical approbation: Nihil Obstat, May 1, 1909: Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur: John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
The Preface of Erasmus’ 1525 edition of Jerome:
For the rest, it is not yet agreed in what spirit the Church now holds in public use books which the ancients with great consent reckoned among the Apocrypha. Whatever the authority of the Church has approved I embrace simply, as a Christian man ought to do… Yet it is of great moment to know in what spirit the Church approves anything. For allowing that it assigns equal authority to the Hebrew Canon and the Four Gospels, it assuredly does not wish Judith, Tobit, and Wisdom to have the same weight as the Pentateuch.
(Des. Erasmus Roterodamus, “Epistola: Ad Divinarum Literarum Studiosos;” In: TOMUS QUARTUS, IN CUIUS: PRIMA parte reperies erudita quædam, sed hactenus falso inscripta HIERONYMO. IN SECUNDA, aliena, sed suis quæque titulis autorem testantia. IN TERTIA, lectu prorsus indigna, & impudenter attributa doctis viris. Quæ tamen adiunximus, ne quid amputasse videremur æditioni iam receptæ. Omnia diligentius recognita, ed. Des. Erasmus Roterodamus, [Basileae: Apud 10 Frobenium, 1525], pp. 6, 11. trans. Brooke Foss Westcott, The Bible in the Church: A Popular Account of the Collection and Reception of the Holy Scriptures in the Christian Churches, [London and Cambridge: Macmillan and Co., 1870], p. 252.) [6.]
Bruce Metzger:
…the earliest Latin version of the Bible in modern times, made from the original languages by the scholarly Dominican, Sanctes Pagnini, and published at Lyons in 1528, with commendatory letters from Pope Adrian VI and Pope Clement VII, sharply separates the text of the canonical books from the text of the Apocryphal books. Still another Latin Bible, this one an addition of Jerome’s Vulgate published at Nuermberg by Johannes Petreius in 1527, presents the order of the books as in the Vulgate but specifies at the beginning of each Apocryphal book that it is not canonical. Furthermore, in his address to the Christian reader the editor lists the disputed books as ‘Libri Apocryphi, sive non Canonici, qui nusquam apud Hebraeos extant.’
(Bruce Metzger, An Introduction to the Apocrypha, [New York: Oxford University Press, 1957], p. 180.)
The New Jerome Biblical Commentary:
Catholic editions of the Bible published in Germany and in France in 1527 and 1530 contained only the protocanonical books.
(Raymond E. Brown S.S., Raymond F. Collins, “Canonicity;” In: The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, eds. Raymond E. Brown, S.S., Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J., Roland E. Murphy, O.Carm., [London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1992], p. 1042. Ecclesiastical approbation: Nihil Obstat: Raymond E. Brown, S.S., Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J., Roland E. Murphy, O.Carm., Censores Deputati. Imprimatur: Reverend William J. Kane, Vicar General for the Archdiocese of Washington, November 15, 1988.)
F. Additional Testimony Against the Canonicity of the Apocrypha (From the 15th and 16th Centuries, Prior to Trent). Return to Outline.
1. Antoninus (15th century)
2. Alonso Tostado (15th century)
3. Dionysius (Denys) the Carthusian (15th century)
4. Thomas Walden (Netter) (15th century)
5. Jean Driedo (16th century)
6. John Ferus (16th Century)
7. Jacobus Faber Stapulensis (16th century)
For primary source documentation see: William Webster, Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith: Volume II, [Battleground: Christian Resources, 2001], pp. 382-386, 425-433. See also: christiantruth.com - Part 1 and Part 2.
2. The Apocrypha Were not “Canonized” Until the “Council” of Trent. Return to Outline.
George Tavard, A.A. (Roman Catholic Theologian and Historian):
The question of the “deutero-canonical” books will not be settled before the sixteenth century. As late as the second half of the thirteenth, St Bonaventure used as canonical the third book of Esdras and the prayer of Manasses, whereas St Albert the Great and St Thomas doubted their canonical value.
(George H. Tavard, Holy Writ or Holy Church: The Crisis of the Protestant Reformation, [Westport: Greenwood Press, 1978], pp. 16-17. Ecclesiastical approbation: Nihil Obstat: John P. Haran, S.j., Censor Depvtatvs. Imprimatvr: John J. Wright, D.D. Bishop of Worcester (Mass.).)
Cardinal Yves Congar, O.P. (Roman Catholic Theologian and Historian):
Cullmann is right not to speak of “the fixing of the canon”: an official, definitive list of inspired writings did not exist in the Catholic Church until the Council of Trent, just as there was no official and definitive fixing of the number of the sacraments until then…
(Yves Congar, O.P., Tradition and Traditions: An Historical and a Theological Essay, [New York: The Macmillan Company, 1967], p. 38. Ecclesiastical approbation: Nihil obstat: Joannes Coventry, S.J., Censor deputatus. Imprimatur: Patritius J. Casey, Vicarius Generalis, Westmonasterii, die 23 Maii 1966.)
H. J. Schroeder, O.P. (The Official English Translator of the Council of Trent):
The Tridentine list or decree was the first infallible and effectual promulgated declaration on the Canon of Holy Scriptures.
(Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent: Original Text With English Translation, trans. H. J. Schroeder, O.P., [St. Louis and London: B. Herder Book Co., 1960], p. 17 fn. 4. Ecclesiastical approbation: Nihil Obstat: Fr. Humbertus Kane, O.P., Fr. Alexius Driscoll, O.P. Imprimi Potest: Fr. Petrus O’Brien, O.P., Prior Provincialis. Nihil Obstat: Sti. Ludovici, die 5. Septembris, 1941, A. A. Esswein, Censor Deputatus. Imprimatur: Sti. Ludovici, die 5. Septembris, 1941, Joannes J. Glennon, Archiepiscopus.)
The Catholic Encyclopedia:
The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council.
(George J. Reid, S.T.L., “Canon;” In: The Catholic Encyclopedia: An International Work of Reference on the Constitution, Doctrine, Discipline, and History of the Catholic Church: Volume III, [New York: The Universal Knowledge Foundation, Inc., 1913], p. 274. Ecclesiastical approbation: Nihil Obstat, November 1, 1908: Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur: John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.)
The New Catholic Encyclopedia:
According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church (at the Council of Trent).
(L. F. Hartman, “Canon, Biblical;” In: New Catholic Encyclopedia: Volume III, [New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967], p. 29. Ecclesiastical approbation: Nihil Obstat: John P. Whalen, M.A., S.T.D. Censor Deputatus. Imprimatur: Patrick A. O’Boyle, D.D. Archbishop of Washington, August 5, 1966.)
The New Catholic Encyclopedia: Second Edition:
St. Jerome (A.D. 340-420) distinguished between “canonical books” and “ecclesiastical books.” The latter he judged, were circulated by the Church as good “spiritual reading,” but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. …The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries . . . e.g., John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. …The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent.
(J. C. Turro, “Canon, Biblical — 2. History of the Old Testament Canon;” In: The New Catholic Encyclopedia: Second Edition: Volume 3, [Detroit: Thomson/Gale; in association with: Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America, 2003], p. 26.)
Note: John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado (and most other Theologians) did not doubt the canonicity of the Apocrypha, they explicitly and repeatedly rejected them (as being canonical in a primary sense, see Cajetan quoted above). For extensive primary source documentation of this fact see: William Webster, Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith: Volume II, [Battleground: Christian Resources, 2001], pp. 301ff. See also: christiantruth.com and part 3 endnotes.
Note: Click here for additional resources on the canon.
G. Excursus: The Local Synods of Hippo/Carthage vs. the “Council” of Trent. Return to Outline.
While the promulgations of the local/regional synods of Hippo and Carthage were not accepted by the church at large (cf. William Webster, Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith: Volume II, [Battleground: Christian Resources, 2001], pp. 301ff. See also: christiantruth.com and part 3 endnotes.) it is also worth noting that the canon lists of Carthage and Hippo are different from the canon list of Trent.
Note: Click here for more on the LXX (Septuagint) and the Apocrypha.
William Webster:
The veneration which this Church held for the Septuagint, based on implicit belief in its inspiration, is well represented by Augustine. He believed the myth of the seventy-two Jewish translators who, under Ptolmey, were individually placed in isolation and rendered the same translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. The adherence by Augustine and the North African Church to the Septuagint has some significant implications for the whole question of the establishment of the canon. Again, Roman Catholic apologists argue that the canon was authoritatively settled for the universal Church at the Councils of Hippo and Carthage. However, the canon decreed by the North African Councils differed from that decreed by the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century on one important point. Hippo and Carthage stated that 1 Esdras and 2 Esdras were canonical, referring to the Septuagint version of 1 and 2 Esdras, the Bible their Latin version was based upon. In that version, 1 Esdras was the apocryphal additions to Ezra and Nehemiah not found in the Hebrew Bible, while 2 Esdras was the canonical Jewish version of Ezra-Nehemiah. The Jews only acknowledged Ezra and Nehemiah which they combined into one book. This was 2 Esdras in the Septuagint version. It was Jerome (in his Latin Vulgate) who separated Ezra and Nehemiah into two books, calling them 1 Esdras and 2 Esdras respectively. This became standard for the Vulgate and the basis upon which Trent declared the Septuagint I Esdras to be noncanonical. 1 Esdras in the Septuagint then became 3 Esdras in the Vulgate and the other Apocryphal apocalyptic work of 3 Esdras became 4 Esdras in the Vulgate. In the earliest Septuagint manuscripts, Codex Vaticanus (early 4th century) and Codex Alexandrinus (early 5th century), I Esdras is listed as one book and Ezra-Nehemiah is listed separately as a second book.
(William Webster, Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith: Volume II, [Battleground: Christian Resources, 2001], pp. 346-347.) See also: christiantruth.com.
Cf. The New Catholic Encyclopedia:
Third Esdras. Four books are attributed to Esdras (Ezra in the Hebrew spelling). The distinction between these books is confusing because of the manuscript and denominational differences:
(†) = canonical books
…The book was certainly compiled before A.D. 90, for the Jewish historian Josephus quoted from it (Ant. 11); but its exclusive concern with Jewish interests puts its composition before the Christian era, closer to 100 B.C. Until the 5th century. Christians very frequently ranked 3 Esdras with the canonical books; it is found in many LXX MSS and in the Latin Vulgate (Vulg) of St. Jerome. Protestants therefore include 3 Esdras with other apocrypha (deuterocanonical) books such as Tobit or Judith. The Council of Trent definitively removed it from the canon.
(C. Stuhlmueller, “Bible, III — 4. Apocrypha of the Old Testament;” In: New Catholic Encyclopedia: Volume II, [Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America, 1967; reprinted 1981], pp. 396, 397. Ecclesiastical approbation: Nihil Obstat: John P. Whalen, M.A., S.T.D. Censor Deputatus. Imprimatur: Patrick A. O’Boyle, D.D. Archbishop of Washington, August 5, 1966.) [7.]
For more on this see: William Webster, “A Refutation of the Misrepresentations of the Facts of History and of the Writings of William Webster on the Canon by Roman Catholic Apologist, Art Sippo,” §. 5. See: christiantruth.com.
3. Endnotes. Return to Outline.
[1.] Cf. Gregory I [Gregory the Great], Bishop of Rome [Pope] (c. 540-604 A.D.): De qua re non inordinate agimus, si ex libris, licet non canonicis, sed tamen ad ædificationem Ecclesiæ editis, testimonium proferamus. Eleazar namque in prælio elephantem feriens stravit, sed sub ipso quem exstinxit occubuit (I Mach. VI, 46). (Sancti Gregorii Magni, Moralium, Lib. XIX, Cap. XXI, §. 34 [Job, In Cap. XXIX, vers. 14]; PL, 76:119.) Return to Article.
[2.] Cf. Cardinal Ximenes’ Complutensian Polyglot Bible (1514-1517 A.D.): Verum quia quibusdam in locis ubi intergra est littera & incorrupta: miru in modum fauet Christianæ religioni: Idcirco reliquos libros totius Veteris testamenti e Chalaica lingua in latinam verti fecimus: & diligentissime cum sua latina traductione conscriptos in publica Complutensis nostræ Universitatis Bibliotheca reponi. At vero libri extra canone: quos Ecclesia pontius ad ædificationem populi: [quam] ad autoritatem ecclesiasticorum dogmatum confirmandam recipit: Græcam tm habent scripturam: sed cum duplici latina interpretatione: altera beati Hieronymi: altera interlineari de verbo ad verbu: eo modo quo in cæteris. Hæc autem de numero linguarum huius libri oportuit in vniuersum prælibasse. (Francisco Ximenes de Cisneros, Vetus Testamentum Multiplici Lingua Nunc Primo Impressum: Lib. I, [1514-1517], Prologus.) Return to Article.
[3.] Cf. Glossa Ordinaria (Prologue): …idcirco hic distinximus, et distincte numeravimus primo libros canonicos, et postea non canonicos, inter quos tantum distat quantum inter certum et dubium. Nam canonici sunt confecti Spiritus sancto dictante non canonici autem sive apocryphi, nescitur quo tempore quibusve auctoribus autoribus sint editi; quia tamen valde boni et utiles sunt, nihilque in eis quod canonicis obviet, invenitur, ideo Ecclesia eos legit, et permittit, ut ad devotionem, et ad morum informationem a fidelibus legantur. Eorum tamen auctoritas ad probandum ea quae veniunt in dubium, aut in contentionem, et ad confirmandam ecclesiasticorum dogmatum auctoritatem, non reputatur idonea, ut ait beatus Hieronymus in prologis super Judith et super libris Salomonis. (Walfridus Strabus Fuldensis Monachus, In Glossam Ordinariam: Prolegomena, De Canonicis et Non Canonicis Libris; PL, 113:19-20. Cf. Biblia Cum Glosa Ordinaria et Expositione Lyre Litterali et Morali: Lib. I, [Basel: Petri & Froben, 1498], De Libris Biblie Canonicis et Non Canonicis.) Return to Article.
[4.] Cf. Glossa Ordinaria (Prologue): Isti sunt libri qui non sunt in canone, quos tamen Ecclesia ut bonos et utiles libros admittit, non ut canonicos, inter quos sunt aliqui majoris auctoritatis, aliqui minoris. Nam Tobias, Judith, et Machabæorum libri, Sapientiæ quoque liber atque Ecclesiasticus, valde ab omnibus probantur… Minoris autem auctoritatis sunt Baruch, et tertius et quartus Esdræ… (Walfridus Strabus Fuldensis Monachus, In Glossam Ordinariam: Prolegomena, De Canonicis et Non Canonicis Libris; PL, 113:21, 22. Cf. Biblia Cum Glosa Ordinaria et Expositione Lyre Litterali et Morali: Lib. I, [Basel: Petri & Froben, 1498], De Libris Biblie Canonicis et Non Canonicis.) Return to Article.
[5.] Cf. Cardinal Cajetan’s Commentary on All the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament: Et hoc in loco terminamus commentaria librorum historialium veteris testamenti: nam reliqui (videlicet Iudith, Tobiæ & Maccabæorum libri) a diuo Hieronymo extra canonicos libros supputatur, & inter apocrypha locatur, cum libro Sapientiae & Ecclesiastico: vt patet in prologo galeato. Nec turberis nouitie si alicubi repereris libros istos inter canonicos supputari, vel in sacris conciliis vel in sacris doctoribus. Nam ad Hieronymi limam reducenda sunt tam verba conciliorum quam doctorum: & iuxta illius sententiam ad Chromatium & Heliodorum episcopos, libri isti (& si qui alii sunt in canone Bibliæ similes) non sunt canonici, hoc est non sunt regulares firmandum ea quae sunt fidei. possunt tamen dici canonici (hoc est regulares) ad ædificationem fidelium: vt pote in canone Bibliæ ad hoc recepti & authorati. cum hac enim distinctione discernere poteris & dicta Augustini in secundo de doctrina Christiana, & scripta in concilio Florentino sub Eugenio quarto: scriptaque in prouincialibus conciliis Chartaginensi & Laodicensi, & ab Innocentio ac Gelacio pontificibus Ad laudem & gloriam omnipotentis Dei: Romae anno salutis millesimo quingentesimo trigesimo secundo: ætatis vero meæ sexagesimo quarto, die decimanona Iulii, amen. (Thomas de Vio Caietanus Cardinalis, In Omnes Authenticos Veteris Testamenti Historiales Libros Commentarii, [Parisiis: Apud Carolam Guillard, 1546], “Ester Commentarii,” Cap. X, pp. 481b-482a.) Return to Article.
[6.] Cf. The Preface of Erasmus’ 1525 edition of Jerome: Cæterum quo animo nunc ecclesia habet in usu publico, quæ veteres magno consensu numerabant inter apocrypha, nondum satis constat. Nos sane quicquid ecclesiastica comprobarit autoritas, simpliciter, ut Christiano dignum est, amplectimur. …magni certe refert, quid quo animo comprobet ecclesia. Ut enim parem autoritatem tribuat Hebræorum voluminibus, & quatuor euangeliis: certe non vult idem esse pondus Iudith, Tobiæ, & Sapientiæ libris, quod Moysi pentateucho. (Des. Erasmus Roterodamus, “Epistola: Ad Divinarum Literarum Studiosos;” In: TOMUS QUARTUS, IN CUIUS: PRIMA parte reperies erudita quædam, sed hactenus falso inscripta HIERONYMO. IN SECUNDA, aliena, sed suis quæque titulis autorem testantia. IN TERTIA, lectu prorsus indigna, & impudenter attributa doctis viris. Quæ tamen adiunximus, ne quid amputasse videremur æditioni iam receptæ. Omnia diligentius recognita, ed. Des. Erasmus Roterodamus, [Basileae: Apud 10 Frobenium, 1525], pp. 6, 11. Cf. John Jortin, The Life of Erasmus: Vol. III, [London: Richard Taylor and Co., 1808], Appendix: No. LVIII: Preface of Erasmus to the Fourth Tome of Jerome (Des. Erasmus divinarum literarum studiosis omnibus), pp. 236-237, 242.)
Cf. Desiderius Erasmus, Explanation of the Apostles Creed (1533 A.D.): How many books does the title ‘canonical Scripture’ embrace? It is easy to answer that: St Cyprian has given the information. First, all of Scripture is divided into the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Old Testament includes the Pentateuch, that is the five books of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. To these are added the two books of Joshua, Judges and Ruth. After these come the four books of Kings, which the Hebrews compress into two. Next is the book of Paralipomenon, that is, ‘of things passed over,’ which is called the ‘book of Days’ by the Hebrews. Then follow the first two books of Esdras, which the Hebrews reckon as one, since Third and Fourth Esdras are regarded as apocryphal. Next come the four major prophets: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel. To these is joined a single book containing the twelve minor prophets. In addition to these, there are the single books Job and Psalms, three books of Solomon — Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Canticle of Canticles. The authority of the ancients has limited the books of the Old Testament to this number [Intra hunc numerum conclusit priscorum autoritas veteris testamenti volumina]; it is sinful to doubt their reliability. The book of Wisdom, which some suspect to be a work of Philo Judaeus, and another called Ecclesiasticus, attributed to Jesus, son of Sirach, have been accepted for use in the church, as well as Tobit, Judith, Esther, and two books of Maccabees. Two stories which the Hebrews did not have, one about Susanna, the other about Bel and the Dragon, are appended to the book of Daniel and are also accepted. (Jerome asserts that he translated them from the edition of Theodotion.) Only the Spirit of the church knows whether or not the church has accepted these books as of equal authority with the others. (Desiderius Erasmus, Dilucida et Pia Explanatio Symboli Apostolorum, [Basileae: Ex Officina Frobeniana, 1533], pp. 119-120; trans. Collected Works of Erasmus: Volume 70: Spiritualia And Pastoralia, ed. John W. O’Malley, [Toronto/Buffalo/London: University of Toronto Press, 1998], Explanatio Symboli Apostolorum, pp. 332-333.) Return to Article.
[7.] Cf. Henry Barclay Swete: The ‘Greek Esdras’ consists of an independent and somewhat free version of portions of 2 Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah, broken by a long context which has no parallel in the Hebrew Bible. …In the early Church the Greek Esdras was accepted without suspicion; cf. e.g. Clem. Alex. strom. i. 21; Origen, in Joann. t. vi. 1, in Jos. hom. ix. 10; Cyprian, ep. 74. 9. Jerome, however, (praef. in Ezr.), discarded the book, and modern editions of the Vulgate relegate it to an appendix where it appears as 3 Esdras, the titles 1 Esdras and 2 Esdras being given to the two parts of the canonical book of Ezra-Nehemiah. (Henry Barclay Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, [Cambridge: At the University Press, 1900], pp. 265-266, 267.) See also: ccel.org.
Cf. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church: ‘Esdras’ is the Greek and Latin form of Ezra. In the Septuagint there are two books of this title,—I Esdras (Esdras A), a Greek book based on parts of 2 Chr., Ez. and Neh., with an interpolated story not extant in Hebrew; and II Esdras (Esdras B), a straightforward rendering of the Hebrew Ezra-Neh. (treated as one book). In the current form of the Vulgate these are increased to four, viz.: I and II Esdras, i.e. St. Jerome’s rendering of Ezra and Neh., treated as separate books; III Esdras, the Old Latin version of Esdras A; and IV Esdras, another book not extant in Greek (see below). For the original Vulgate Jerome deliberately confined himself to the first two of these, rejecting the other two as uncanonical (Praef. in Esd., c. Vigil. 7); but all four books are commonly included (with some confusion in the numbering) in Latin biblical MSS. In 1546 the Council of *Trent (sess. iv) finally rejected III and IV Esdras from the RC Canon, and in subsequent editions of the Vulgate they appear (with the Prayer of Manasses) as an Appendix following the NT. In the Geneva Bible (1560) and subsequent English Versions, I and II Esdras of the Vulgate are entitled ‘Ezra’ and ‘Nehemiah’, while III and IV Esdras are the ‘1’ and ‘2’ Esdras of the Apocrypha. (F. L. Cross, ed., The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, [London: Oxford University Press, 1957], “ESDRAS, Books of.,” p. 462.)
Cf. Encyclopedia of Early Christianity: Second Edition: The Hebrew Bible treats Ezra and its companion book, Nehemiah, which tells of the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem under the governor Nehemiah, as one book (1 and 2 Esdras in the Vulgate). The Greek and Latin form of Ezra’s name, Esdras, is employed in the title of 1 Esdras (3 Esdras in the Vulgate), a Greek version of Ezra-Nehemiah based on a text different from that in the Hebrew Bible. (Everett Ferguson, “Ezra (Esdras) (fifth or fourth century B.C.);” In: Everett Ferguson, ed., Encyclopedia of Early Christianity: Second Edition: Volume 1, [New York & London: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1997], p. 414.)
Cf. Jacob M. Myers: I Esdras owes its name to the Greek Bible where Esdras A=I Esdras and Esdras B=Ezra and Nehemiah. In some lists Esdras a (alpha), Esdras b (beta), and Esdras g (gamma) stand for I Esdras, Ezra, and Nehemiah. There is no Greek Esdras d (delta) but there is mention of Esdras o prophetēs and Esdras apokalupsis. The Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin Bible) has Esdras 1 (=Ezra), Esdras 2 (=Nehemiah), Esdras 3 (=I Esdras) and Esdras 4 (=II Esdras). (Jacob M. Myers, The Anchor Bible: I and II Esdras, [Garden City: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1974], Introduction, p. 1.)
Cf. Herbert Edward Ryle: In lists of the Old Testament which include the Apocryphal books, an element of confusion is caused by the Apocryphal “Ezra,” our First Book of Esdras. In the LXX. Version, the Old Latin, and the Syriac, this Apocryphal Greek Book was placed, out of regard probably for chronology, before the Hebrew Ezra, and was called the First of Ezra (Έσδρας α'), while our Ezra and Nehemiah appeared as one book, with the title of the Second of Ezra (Έσδρας β'). In his translation of the Vulgate, Jerome did not recognise the Canonicity of the Apocryphal Books. He translated the Hebrew Ezra (our Ezra and Nehemiah) as one book with the title of Ezra; but he acquiesced in the division of the Canonical Ezra into two books, for he speaks of the Apocryphal books as the Third and Fourth of Ezra. “Nec quemquam moveat quod unus a nobis editus liber est: nec apocryphorum tertii et quarti somniis delectetur: quia et apud Hebraeos Ezrae Nehemiaeque sermones in unum volumen coarctantur; et quae non habentur apud illos nec de viginti quatuor senibus sunt, procul abjicienda” (Praefat. in Esram). In the Vulgate, accordingly, Ezra and Nehemiah were called the First and Second of Ezra; the Apocryphal Greek Ezra was called the Third of Ezra; the Apocalyptic work, the Fourth of Ezra. …The influence of the Vulgate caused the names applied to the books in that version to be generally adopted in the West. At the Council of Trent, Ezra and Nehemiah are called “the first book of Ezra and the second of Ezra which is called Nehemiah” (Esdrae primus et secundus qui dicitur Nehemias). (Herbert Edward Ryle, The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges: The Books of Ezra And Nehemiah: With Introduction, Notes and Maps: Stereotyped Edition, gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne, [Cambridge: At the University Press, 1897], Introduction, §. 2, pp. xiii-xiv, xiv.) Return to Article.
καὶ αὐτός ἐστιν πρὸ πάντων καὶ τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκεν ~ Soli Deo Gloria
No comments:
Post a Comment