Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger

Author:Gary G. Michuta [Michuta, Gary G.]
Language: eng
Format: epub
Tags: Christian Books & Bibles, Bibles, Catholicism, Religion & Spirituality, More Translations
Amazon: B00E99AU1C
Publisher: The Grotto Press
Published: 2013-07-30T06:00:00+00:00

Esdras 1

2 Chronicles 35-26:21

Esdras 2:1-15

Ezra 4:7-24

Esdras 3-5:6

unique material

Esdras 5:7-73

Ezra 2-4:5

Esdras 6-9:36

Ezra 5-10

Esdras 9:37-55

Nehemiah 7:73-8:13a

Only a short section of this book (Esdras 3:1-5:6) contains unique material. Most of the book is a repetition of 2 Chronicles, Ezra, or Nehemiah. If Esdras is mostly a compilation of existing Scripture, why was it made in the first place? Gigot believes that Esdras may not have originated as an individual writing:

But should not this almost perfect identity of contents between the third book of Esdras and the books which precede and follow it in the old editions of the sacred text, have suggested long ago that the third book of Esdras is really not an independent writing, but rather a revised translation with a single interpolation taken from some independent source viz., iii-v, 6? In point of fact, the more closely the common elements are examined, the more will they appear to point to the one and same text as underlying the third book of Esdras and our canonical writings, and as rendered more freely in the former than in the ordinary Greek copies of the Septuagint: the more, in one word, will it become probable, that the so-called third book of Esdras is simply a version of certain parts of Holy Writ, whose substance is of course inspired, but whose individuality may be rejected by the Church, as was done in the case of the old Septuagint translation of the book of Daniel.[616]

The question was (and still is) ‘is Esdras a separate book that happened to use an awful lot of canonical material,’ or ‘is it an early recension of Scripture with some additional non-canonical material added?’ No one knows. The only thing certain about Esdras’ canonical pedigree is that it is uncertain.

Many things are questionable about Esdras. The Council of Carthage may have included Esdras on its list. We don’t know for certain. Esdras may be an individual book or it may be a recension. No one knows. A few Church Fathers may have used Esdras as a canonical book, but this usage disappeared around the fifth century, although it remained in the Latin Vulgate and the Septuagint. By the time of Trent, the exact nature of the Esdras, both its form and its canonical status, was open to doubt. The best move for Trent was not to move at all.

The fourth question of the Capita Dubitationum asked whether those books that were not included in Trent’s list, but were included in the Latin Vulgate (e.g. The Book of Esdras, 4Ezra, and 3 Maccabees), should be rejected by a Conciliar decree, or should they be passed over in silence. Only three Fathers voted for an explicit rejection. Forty-two voted that the status of these books should be passed over in silence. Eight bishops did not vote. The majority won, and Trent deliberately withheld any explicit decision on these books. In post-Tridentine editions of the Vulgate, Esdras, and the others were moved to an appendix in the back.[617]

Those who claim then, that Trent “rejected” Esdras are mistaken.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.