Replies

Diamond:

This is my last word on this subject with you. The Catholic St. Jerome Biblical Commentary [and yes for my fellow Catholics here, I know its commentary relies to heavily on the Historical-Critical method, I am more of a Patristic guy when it comes to Bibilical commentaries] and while it overrelies on the historical-critical method, its scholarship is excellent.

Ok, in the Chapter 66 “Canonicity” the authors of this Chapter (Fr. Raymond E. Brown and Fr. Raymond Collins] write (p.1036, section 12) “In regard to the contents of the list, the debates in Judaism and the Church (Marcion) will be discussed below, as wil the theological impetus to select and reject. Athanasius is the oldest witness to citation of 27 NT books. Both he and Jerome list 22 Books from the Jewish Scriptures corresponding to the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet. Since the 12 Minor Prophets were considered a single book, and there were 5 double books (=10: 1-2 Sam; 1-2 Kings; 1-2 Chr; Ezra-Neh, Jer-Lam), and Ruth was joined to Judges, their 22 books correspond to 39 (protocanonical) books in the modern Bible. In De doctrina christiana 2.8.13 (AD 396-97) Augustine listed 44 OT books (=46 since Bar and Lam are part of Jer) including the Deuterocanonical books and his great stature tended to close the canon in the West on the extent of the canon. Thus, the Western Councils mentioned above [the article in the previous section cites Rome 382 AD, Hippo 393 AD, Carthage III 397 AD, and Carthage IV 419 AD) and the letter of Pope Innocent I in 405 agreed on a list of “46 OT BOOKS” [emphasis mine] and 27 NT Books. Yet the reproduction of several lists in 692 at Quinisextine Council in Constantinopile known as Trullo II warns against being to simplistic about the fixity of the consensus that existed at the end of the 4th century.”

In continuity with the dominant Tradition there were 46 OT Books and 27 NT books {73 total} listed in the bull Cantate Domino of the [Ecumenical} Council of Florence, promulgated in 1442 as a document of union between Rome and Coptic Christians...

Ok, so what do we take from this. Catholic sources identify the canonical lists of Rome 322, Hippo 393, Carthage 397, Carthage 419 and ST. Augustine’s Letter in 396/397 AD as listing 44 books, which correspond to “46 OT BOOKS”, which means those 46 include the 39 Protocanonical books the Protestant OT canon and also in the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox OT canon plus “7 Deuterocanonical Books”, which would be Sirach, Wisdom, Tobit, Judith, Baruch, 1 and 2 Macabees.

If what you continue to believe is true, then those lists would have equaled “47 OT Books” in the Catholic OT canon, which was not the case. On the other hand, the look 1 Esdras in the LXX, called 3 Esdras in Latin is found in the OT Canon of the Eastern Orthodox Church, which is consistent with the Council Trullo II, which was a local Council of the Eastern Church and was never accepted by Rome as Rome had already agreed, following the dominant Tradition of the 4th century, to a 46 OT Canon.

So either the sources you are citing are incorrect or they are trying to twist history for polemical reasons or maybe there is some other explanation that escapes me, but the Catholic sources don’t agree with what you are saying and/or the sources that you are citing to make your arguments.

Regards

the Catholic sources don’t agree with what you are saying and/or the sources that you are citing to make your arguments.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize Popes Innocent I, Gelasius and Hormisdas were not Catholic sources </dry humor>

If what you continue to believe is true, then those lists would have equaled “47 OT Books” in the Catholic OT canon

No they wouldn't. The issue is not the number of books because if you separate one book (Ezra/Nehemiah) into two, and then exclude III Esdras you end up with the same total number of books either way. The issue is when this separation occurred, and the answer is that Jerome (who did NOT accept the deutercanonicals in the strict sense) was the first. I have not seen you produce any evidence, Catholic or otherwise, for any earlier separation from any Father who followed the wider canon. You assert an earlier Latin tradition but you have produced no direct evidence from any sources, Catholic or otherwise. The funny thing is, I agree with the Catholic encyclopedias. I think they are accurate, but they do not show what you are trying to prove. They demonstrate just the opposite. For example, you cite:

In De doctrina christiana 2.8.13 (AD 396-97) Augustine listed 44 OT books (=46 since Bar and Lam are part of Jer) including the Deuterocanonical books and his great stature tended to close the canon in the West on the extent of the canon. Thus, the Western Councils mentioned above [the article in the previous section cites Rome 382 AD, Hippo 393 AD, Carthage III 397 AD, and Carthage IV 419 AD) and the letter of Pope Innocent I in 405 agreed on a list of “46 OT BOOKS” [emphasis mine] and 27 NT Books.

There is nothing in that reference that I disagree with, as far as it goes, because it is only those Fathers who followed the Hebrew canon and reject the deuterocannicals in the stricter sense, such as Jerome, who separates Ezra and Nehemiah as separate books as distinct from the Hebrew practice of joining them as one. He was the first to do so. So citing Augustine, who did not agree with Jerome and who did not follow the Hebrew canon, doesn't help your case because Augustine and Hippo/Carthage followed the enlarged Septuigant canon in which 1 Esdras meant Septuagint 1 Esdras and not the Hebrew Ezra. Augustine's 1 Esdras (3 Esdras) is the book that was later excluded by Trent.

You have asserted an earlier Latin Tradition, but have provide zero documentary evidence prior to Jerome, the original author of the Vulgate, in support of your hypothesis. The irony of this is that Jerome himself exluded it from the strict canon because he followed the Hebrew canon, not the enlarged Septuigant canon.

I will leave you with two citations from New Catholic Encyclopedia:

"Until the 5th century, Christians very frequently ranked 3 Esdras with the Canonical books; it is found in many LXX MSS (Septuagint manuscripts)."
and
"The Council of Trent definitively removed it from the canon"(New Catholic Encyclopedia (New York: McGraw Hill, 1967), Volume II, Bible, III,pp. 396-397).

What was Trent removing, if it was not there in the first place?

Cordially,